I had an interesting discussion with my wife last night. She framed the overturning of Roe as "men controlling women's bodies". I pointed out that men and women tend to be pro- and anti-choice at about the same rate, and that the outcome probably would've been the same even if men weren't over-represented in positions of power.

She said that's not the point; that the same decision would've been less bitter if it had at least been made by women.

My feeling was that the issues men face are no less damaging because the people at the top have the same plumbing as us, but her viewpoint is interesting.

I personally think a representative government should be as close to demographically representative of its constituency as possible, but only because it might approximate ideological representation, which I consider far more important.

For example, one of the biggest demographic disparities in congress is between the religious and the irreligious. The religiously unaffiliated make up 26% of US adults, but only 0.2% of the congress.

Would I like to see that gap close? Yes. Would I like to see Kyrsten Sinema kicked to the curb as soon as humanly possible despite her being the only atheist in the Senate? Also yes. I'd rather have 100% of my representation be handled by religiously devout people who believe the the separation of church and state than Jordan Peterson-esque agnostic theocrats.

So what do you think? Would a more demographically representative government (in terms of gender) be likely to yield more equitable or progressive results? Would it be valuable even without a hypothetical ideological shift? (i.e., is demographic representation for its own sake worth pursuing?)

One benefit I can see is that it would remove or diminish the power of the apex fallacy as a rhetorical device. What do you think?