The same rule for everyone can preserve a difference

Identical treatment and equal effect are not the same thing.

Two people are given identical chairs at identical desks. One of them is comfortable and one of them is not, because the chairs suit one body and not the other. The treatment was identical in every respect that can be photographed. The effect was not. This is the whole difficulty in miniature, and it recurs everywhere: a rule applied uniformly meets people who are not uniform, and the uniformity of the rule does not travel through to the uniformity of the result. Nobody has been treated differently, and the two people are not in the same position.

Uniform rules have real virtues that should not be waved away. They are predictable, they require no judgements about individuals, and they cannot be quietly bent in favour of whoever is best at asking. When a group starts making adjustments, it needs somebody to decide which adjustments are warranted, and that person now has discretion, which is exactly what the uniform rule was there to prevent. The case for treating everyone identically is not stupidity about difference. It is a considered preference for a system that nobody can lean on.

But it is worth being clear eyed about what the preference costs. If a shared kitchen rule says the top shelf is for everyone equally, the shelf belongs in practice to whoever can reach it, and the rule has not created the difference but it has confirmed it. Saying so is not an argument for abolishing the rule. It is an argument for not describing the arrangement as if the outcome were even, because the people who cannot reach the shelf are entirely aware that it is not, and telling them otherwise is what turns a small problem into a grievance.