But I think it's safe to assume if and when a woman has an average rating of 1000, the highest men's rating will still be about 40-70 points higher, just like now. I don't foresee a day when the highest women's rating is higher than the highest men's rating, and I think just saying that out loud makes me realize even more how unfair it is to compare men's ratings with women's ratings in a single scale.
I think this is the point of both arguments.
You concede that the top women on average will be 40-70 points below the top men on average.
The difference is that you see it as unfair that their comparative rating is less than a player that will beat them in heads up play. I see it as unfair to give them a rating equal to or above a player that will beat them in heads up play.
What happens if they play in an unrestricted division like Int or MM1. Do they get a higher rating for shooting the same score as the players they were directly competing against ?