The most striking tendency is toward a (temporary) reversal of Asymmetrization. Let us call this resymmetrization, to be distinguished from mere crossing.
Women take pleasure in the idea of claiming preferences themselves, even if only until the doomsday of establishing complete equality. This can be backed up with statistical methods that show that what is not true in individual cases is nevertheless true on the whole. And it is a highly legitimizable semantic structure that is in use in other domains as well: It is content with temporalized (but not necessarily tempered) validity claims on the basis of the undisputed value of equality. From the temporal conditionality of the claims, their urgency follows inevitably. This makes it possible to deal with strong convictions, and research in developing countries offers the opportunity to strengthen oneself with the drastic case.
No coincidence then, as is evident from the program of the dictionary "Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe" (cf. Koselleck 1972), that temporalization goes hand in hand with ideologization. As a way out of the pure paradox of a distinction that does not distinguish, it seems that the logical problems presented are solved with the help of ideology. This, as long as there is no logic that can digest paradoxes, is not objectionable. The shift of problems from logic to ideology is a possibility of deparadoxification of distinction, which has to be accepted, if the digestion system of logic itself cannot do this, but remains dependent on prior deparadoxification, for instance in the manner of Type Theory. It is only to be demanded that this procedure is practiced with more prudence and more transparency.