Separate but equal sounds wonderful until it is applied, as with the racial segreagtion use originally proclaimed as equal. As an earlier post pointed out, if one proposed a trade, say swapping the black/white signs on school or restroom facilities both groups may be surprised how unequal those facilities really were.
We now have this mainly for gender yet never intended it to be "unfair", but to maintain "tradition" just like the prior racial version or to elevate females "artificially" since they can not successfully compete "heads up" with males in some areas. This is done now to help women feel 'included' while actually being excluded. For example, college sports rules (laws?) say that for every male sports player there must be a separate, yet not equal (except in number) female sports player. If your college has a male football team that has 100 players you must create 100 female players in some sport(s) to "balance that out", perhaps a female swim team, some female golfers and a female vollyball team. But in the name of "fairness" that is the deal, because obviously women are very unlikely to make the college football team, yet it generates tons of money for the school, so somehow that means that we must benefit female athletes "equaly" too. Why this is fair is beyond me, as most males can't make the college football team either, yet they get no 'alternate' special free benefit offers to try out for.
There is also the military version of gender pseudo separation, some positions are male only and some are either gender, yet I know of none that are female only. The pay is essentially the same except for those not permitted equal access to "combat pay" slots, or getting ample overseas or shipboard time to advance in rank as rapidly (there may be more strange remedies for this, but I know of very few, when I was with the US Navy, only females got Guam and Iceland shore duty counted as "shipboard" assignments), but the physical requirements for the "either gender" slots are strangely not equal, the males must be more physically "able" to do the SAME job as the females, yet this is somehow seen as "fair" and necessary. Imagine if we had different minmum qualification standards based on other factors - woops, we do that too in the military, as you age, less is expected of you physically, even if you are likely paid more due to rank and time in service. We accept all sorts of 'separate' things yet rarely call them 'unequal" even when they actually are.