I'd say the problematic dynamic with assertions like "there is absolutely no difference between men and women" is that they terminate a chain of thought, and then get used as a lemma in support of a conclusion. They're held in place by social consensus [0] rather than a lack of nuance.

Hypothetically I can see this happening with my argument, but I'm only imagining more checked-out cynicism. Maybe you see how it's poised for something worse?

What I do commonly see are arguments in the vein of "it's impossible for a company to be coercive", which I'd say is the same exact dogmatic pattern you're describing. They're used to justify a state of affairs, and then offer a fallacious solution like "go start your own company". The wishful thinking here seems to be based on emphasizing the distinction between corporate power and government power [1], which is why I think it's useful to point out the commonalities.

[0] like only now that the mobs have passed, can you use this spicy but technically correct example

[1] see the common trope of people asserting that freedom of speech only pertains to the government, when it's just a general concept and the government-specific bit is the legal framing of the first amendment