So...
By that matter requiring that all employees (male/female) only take no more than 2 months off after having a child, and that all vacations occur in regemented times, and that if you can make it through this for say 15 years, you get added benefits is not sexist right?
At some point one thinks of the quote by Anatole France, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
I am saying that there is a difference between what's a facially non-discriminatory policy that clearly discriminates and what's a truly non-discriminatory policy.
BTW, from discussions I have had with young women trying to decide whether to go down the tenure track in academia in the sciences, I would say that academia has a system which is very discriminatory in its effects.
I'm honestly not sure what any of that means. I'm guessing you misunderstand "uniform application of policy" to mean "rigid application of a rigid policy", but with the way you've written, I can't even be sure of that.
And when they do, you can make objective evaluations of their performance, not pay them for days they don't work, etc.
If your employees are working reasonable hours, and you're applying leave and vacation policies uniformly, you'll get in no legal trouble. If not, your company has problems beyond sexism.