> Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results.
> This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society.
> If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking.
Equity is something that societies create, not an assertion about people's innate abilities or a statement of fact about the universe.
For example, we make buildings handicapped accessible rather than simply declaring that all people are able to walk.
> (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).
Perhaps it would be illustrative to show that you could actually make the exact same rhetorical sleight of hand about "equality of opportunity":
"Equity of opportunity means you believe every person is equal in their opportunity. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in opportunity in society."
This is clearly silly because "equality of opportunity" is a goal you are aspiring to rather than a statement of fact about current society, but the same applies to "equity."
You could also say the same thing about "justice" or any other concept that's not actually a statement of fact about society.
I'm actually not sure where the idea that "equity" is an assertion that outcomes are equal as a matter of fact comes from. It doesn't seem to be a definition that is used anywhere except when people are trying to make this argument that "equity" is obviously absurd and therefore we should abandon it and focus on "equality of opportunity."
Note that this is completely separate from any argument about to what degree we should attempt to achieve "equity" versus "equality of opportunity"; it is simply an issue with this argument using a dubious definition of "equity" to show that "equity" is obviously absurd being a bad argument.