Minus the lesser part, isn't that statement true though?
I think the point is, you measure someone by their capabilities and don't just assume they can't or should be able to do something because of gender.
Considering the concept seems simple, it seems impossible to get anyone to actually agree with it... feminists instead want equal representation in a workplace, hence affirmative action, conservative folk will argue blue in the face with whatever science agrees with them that women clearly are better/worse in things.
The former I call bullshit on, the later doesn't matter. If men and women were evaluated with the same rubrick, the best folk for the job would get the job.
Edit: Now as to the other issues regarding objectification.... this shit is scary, ( and its been around for a while Marget Atwood wrote against it in Handmaid's Tale ). I don't think we want to go back to the Victorian's view of sex. Maisie Williams went on about "cute" being a box that traps a girl... WTF. Men have always been objectified as tools, and as sex partners, and as trophies. Just because society doesn't degrade a man because he gets objectified means its ok to objectify men but not women? Seems like nobody wants to approach the real problem: Why we still view women as damaged goods just because she wants to have a fun roll in the hay. Or that a woman needs to feel confined/boxed in simply because some random guy thinks she's cute.