That is a big point of contention. One side says we already have equality of opportunity, and that the current state of things is a result of a normal distribution in skills/motivations/abilities in the population.

The other turns that around and says no we don't because "structural racism/sexism/classism/etc".

So, they argue against each-other because one sees the current inequality of outcome as a consequence of some sort of "biased" fairness in opportunity. And since the other side disputes the existence of that bias, they think that what's being advocated is pure equality, irrespective of any distribution of skills/talents/etc.

It's an impasse, and we'll never get passed it until we start agreeing and quantifying the possibility that there are differences between sexes/races/cultures/ages. Only then can we correct for any supposed structural biases. It's a touchy topic, and one only need look at the type of controversy The Bell Curve book caused to understand the incredible difficulty that we face trying to conclusively resolve this scientifically.

This is a common argument but it's based on the incorrect assumption that existing difference must dictate the way we shape and envision a future society. It's based on the naturalistic fallacy and is also historically blind.

If you look at history of mankind, you will see that at any stage the existing differences seemed insurmountable and later nevertheless changed. You can look anywhere from the Roman empire (i.e., essentially a fascist militaristic society for a long time), over women's rights, slavery, colonialization etc., it's always the same pattern. The status quo has never defined how a desirable society should look like. As a typical example, many women used to agree that it's pointless for them to vote, since they don't know anything about politics. Maybe these were even in the majority at some time. Nevertheless they've changed their mind.

To cut a long story short, history is full of alleged anthropological constants that were used to justify inequality and all of them turned out to be false and nonexistent. Heck, landowners used to say about peasants that they are just too stupid to own their own land and would immediately gamble it away...

There most definately are, although not extremely common. I recall reading a HAYES (pro-fat) article calling for beauty equalization or some rediculious thing. Sure its not common, but to dismiss any extreme you arent aware of does not help the conversation. The amount of impact is highly variable, but one must assume there is some, as many of these blogs have thousands of followers.

> Are there? Where are they and how much influence do they have? As far as I can tell they are extremely rare and have little to no power.

Quite a lot, one was a presidential candidate complaining about the wage gap, which is an argument for total equality, not equal opportunity.