TL;DR: Legal and social equality are different things and should be treated differently. Altering social or legal equality to compensate for inequalities in the other is morally and ethically wrong, in my opinion.

The following is my opinion on the subject, and I encourage others to declare their own opinions.

In the fight for "equality" (and I use quotes here because the word in this case is both ambiguously defined and used), there are two primary issues to address - legal equality (rights) and social equality (including double standards, stereotypes, etc.). The r/MensRights community often discusses both aspects, and sometimes is criticized for conflating them. Then again, conflating occurs among any group that focuses on the generic issue of "equality".

When it comes to equal legal rights, I think that there are very good grounds for governments to respect equality based on gender and race. Does this mean that the government is saying that men are identical to women? No. It doesn't even mean that the government is saying that both genders are equally capable at all things.

The statement that laws should respect equality of gender and race means precisely that it is possible for members of any gender or race to be capable of anything, even if statistics show that it is less or more likely for one group than another. The implementation is then that the actual capabilities of the individuals should be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than assessment based on their gender/racial status (discrimination).

Example: Are men statistically stronger than women? Yes. Should a physically capable female be denied a job in construction, police or firefighting based on their gender? No. (Obviously this issue is more complicated than that, as police roles don't need all officers to be equally physically capable - a variety of skills are important. The issue is that both men and women should have their personal capabilities compared against the skill set required for the job and be selected based on these requirements only.)

In other words - any legal situation, including employment, custody, and crime/punishment, should be addressed independent of gender and race.

When I say "equal rights", this is what I mean - no law or legal treatment should have different rules based on race or gender. This is why I take issue with custody situations, this is why I take issue with "reverse discrimination", this is why I take issue with sentencing disparities, this is why I take issue with draft laws in the US even though I am not a US citizen.

Social inequalities are a different matter and need to be treated differently. Many governments and organizations end up breaking their respect for equal rights in order to overcome social inequalities, and I find this both hypocritical and destructive. I don't feel that we will ever overcome social inequalities so long as we are creating "compensating" (quotes meaning that others may use the word but I view its use as dubious) legal inequalities.

When a person who claims to be a feminist or Men's Rights activist attacks the idea of "equal rights" simply because there are statistical differences between the genders (feminists: men have more privilege, "MRAs": men are statistically better at some things), I lose all respect for that person. They are not fighting for equality in any way, nor are they fighting for rights. They are fighting for distinction and superiority - superiority for men in areas that they are statistically strong/weak, and/or superiority for women in areas that they are statistically strong/weak. A person cannot claim to be fighting for rights if they are willing to deny others the same rights they are fighting for themselves. And that is a statement that applies to both sides of this debate.