Sure they would. Unless by "truly non-sexist" and/or "without gender difference" you mean "incapable of telling the genders apart at all." Which would make getting pregnant kind of dicey.
You can still have "able to get pregant" and "unable to get pregnant" without gender.
"Separate but equal" is intrinsically injust. But we have separate bathrooms. Why? Because we assume that people we lust after and who might lust after us won't show up there. The assumption in intrinsically heterosexist.
Maybe if the society had started out that way, it'd be different, but there are all kinds of reasons for men to prefer women in a subservient role that have nothing to do with sleeping with them and everything to do with money and political power and generalized fear of the feminine. There are lots of gay men who are madly sexist, and it certainly isn't because they're worried about sleeping with women.
But in a radical feminism, we're not looking at the surface phenomenon but the root causes. Thus the term.
no subject
You can still have "able to get pregant" and "unable to get pregnant" without gender.
"Separate but equal" is intrinsically injust. But we have separate bathrooms. Why? Because we assume that people we lust after and who might lust after us won't show up there. The assumption in intrinsically heterosexist.
Maybe if the society had started out that way, it'd be different, but there are all kinds of reasons for men to prefer women in a subservient role that have nothing to do with sleeping with them and everything to do with money and political power and generalized fear of the feminine. There are lots of gay men who are madly sexist, and it certainly isn't because they're worried about sleeping with women.
But in a radical feminism, we're not looking at the surface phenomenon but the root causes. Thus the term.