The European Court of Justice [sic] has ruled that it is sex-discriminatory for any form of insurance or pension to take account of gender [sic], and this is covered in the news, notably by the BBC, as discriminatory against women re car insurance. But the really huge effect will be to the disadvantage of men in the level of pension payments they receive.
There contines to be the enormous sex-discrimination against men in the male pension age being later than that for women, when it should be the other way round given that men live on average five years less than do women. A slight compensation for this has been that insurers give larger annuities to men in recognition.
It is this that is to be removed and is, obviously, the purpose of the the ECJ's actions.
Consequently, even when pension ages are belatedly equalised, the sex-differential in longevity will mean that men are heavily discriminated against in what purports to be sex-equality.
Sex-equality is always designed to ignore sex-difference and sex-dichotomy when to do so preferences women; it is never when the advantage to the sexes is reversed.
This reveals starkly that supposed equality is anything but.