Physical strength is a useful talent for work that requires physical strength. But not all work requires physical strength. There's no reason that a physically strong person can work a job that utilizes their physical strength, while a person with a different kind of strength/talent works a job that utilizes those. But if two people have equal ability/talent to do that work, Why should one of them be attributed more status/worth than the other simply because of gender/race/class?
As for the intelligence claim, how do you know that there weren't other factors involved when testing for which race was more intelligent than the other?
People with white skin have a wide range of IQ. Some very high, some very low. Why would you think that black people are innately incapable of also having a wide range of IQ, from high to low?
Could the test have been testing people who had wealth opportunity to develop ability to properly answer the test, and comparing it to those who had far less opportunity to develop their ability to answer the test? Comparing a Hampton's 16yo to a Harlem project 16yo isn't exactly a well formed intelligence test.
Also, we are on a forum about different ways of processing information, so this particular concept won't be new to you. Why would you think that, say, a black LSI is innately less intelligent than a white LSI? Are you sure the tests weren't comparing, say, a white ILE to a black SEE on a test that tests for abilities of ILE? Of course the ILE would do better at an ILE test than an SEE would. That doesn't make the SEE somehow of less worth than an ILE. It just means that the SEE is more intelligent in other areas.
(Note: I still argue that it would be stupid to use a Socionics test to decide what kinds of jobs people can have. An intelligent, talented SEE might still be able to do a job better than a low intelligence ILE...regardless of gender/race.)
Equal opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status =/= equality (in the sense that you keep trying to claim).If you see equality as the end goal (like a communist) then you have to dismantle the natural order first, which means removing the family and other natural forms of group identity that separate people. As the Soviets learned, ideological crusades like this makes society much less productive and that is ultimately bad for everyone. Their ideological cousins in American media, academia etc refuse to accept reality, however, and march on, so determined are they to force their dystopia upon the rest of us.
You are the one equating them, not the "social justice brigade".
You've created a strawman arguement for yourself to knock over.
Equal opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status =/= "turning wives against their husbands, turning children against their parents, and communities against themselves" unless you believe that something other than ability or talent assures status.
It also does not mean dismantling families, group identities, etc. It just means that your group/identity is not necessarily assured higher status (nor power) over other groups/identities of similar talent/ability, nor even of others who provide other talents/abilities needed by the society BOTH groups are living in.