We might imagine that humans are akin to gas molecules and human groups are ideal gases, thus an ideal gas law of sorts holds for humans, PV = nRT. There is brownian motion at individual level, but we expect that, statistically, all ideal gases / human groups to have the exact same macro properties. And perhaps if we hard subscribe to rational choice theory (a popular theory among American economists with deep roots in The Enlightenment) we might imagine that indeed humans are atomized undistinguishable gas molecules, pushed around randomly by the vagaries of fate and character.
Alas, there are other ways for matter to organize. Witness the bewildering diversity of minerals out there. 'The Smithsonian's mineral and gem collection [...] consists of approximately 350,000 mineral specimens and 10,000 gems'. As soon as we allow for some degree of matter / social cohesion, the ideal gas / human group law is blown to the smithereens.
I'll let you ponder whether hard atomized rational choice theory is a reasonable assumption when it comes to human groups. Or whether it is a reasonable goal to aspire to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
https://www.si.edu/spotlight/geogallery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Critici....
So would you say that men having shorter lifespans than women is due to bias or oppression against men?
Should we reallocate public health spending from women to men until lifespans are equal?
It is arguing that there are no differences between groups that justifies disparities unless there are biases or oppression.
Even if he is wrong, this still does not become an argument for individual equality of outcome.