- We reject, oppose, and condemn gender-chivalry - the automatic special treatment given to women by men (getting the door, giving up the seat, being the one nearer the street on the sidewalk, etc). The specifics of this may be done based on other reasons, e.g. need, flirting, or kindness to a specific person, but we reject these actions being done entirely by gender, holding that a more symmetric relationship between the sexes is ideal.
- We reject, condemn, and laud interference in impromptu gender-segregation, as oppears in some cultures. When the costs are not too high, we actively interfere with those efforts - if some people for whatever reason (but particularly religious or prudish ones) begin herding the genders apart, we take active steps to frustrate these efforts.
- We generally reject in theory (but not always in practice) gender specific institutions, demanding that they be justified with good reason before accepting them. In situations of need we ignore gender restrictions (if, for example, our restroom is full and the other is not, in a situation of need we will ignore these gender restrictions, occupied or not). While restrooms are an area where, because of various reasons, we are neutral, and institutions that attempt to redress inequality or are highly relevant to sociocultural differences between "male subculture" and "female subculture" (and this is iffy) might be acceptable, in most other situations we condemn institutional specificity. Whether we actively interfere with such restrictions (or broadly laud such interference) depends on situational specifics.
Note that in general, when I issue statements of this kind (often using "We"), I am asserting norms, practices, or philosophy that are part of a particular identity that I have been working to define, as part of a general project of writing norms that are a synthesis of the (potentially separable) norms of liberalism, secularism, socialism, and academism.