"If Thy Brother, An Hebrew Man Or An Hebrew Woman . . ."

In Hebrew and in English translations of the Bible such as the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and to a lesser extent the New International Version prior to 2011, the Bible sometimes uses words like he, him, man, and men when it has just been explicitly specified that men and women alike are meant.  Otherwise, such translations and the original languages might use male words when neither gender is excluded by the statement, but men and women are also not separately mentioned.  In Mosaic Law, these things are especially important because they emphasize, though there are many other logical and Biblical reasons why just using male language by default would not teach sexism towards men or women in various statements, that the same sins by or against men and women are of course sins meriting the same reactions.  See Exodus 21:26-27 (one place where this is done to emphasize that men and women are equal victims of the same sin), Leviticus 13:29-39, Numbers 5:5-7 (a place where men and women are both listed as perpetrators), Deuteronomy 13:6-10, and so on in, say, the KJV for examples of men and women being mentioned independently and then jointly mentioned again using male words.

Deuteronomy 15:12 in the King James Version actually uses the word brother, mentions that a woman is also referenced by that word, and then goes back to using a male word to speak of someone whom the text just said could be either a man or a woman:

Deuteronomy 15:12 (KJV)--"And if thy brother, an Hebrew man or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serves thee six years; in the seventh year thou shall let him go free from thee."

This would even aside from all other logical and Biblical affirmation of gender equality in Christian ethics have clear ramifications for what the wording of many other passages in Mosaic Law and elsewhere would mean, only a small number of which are provided below.  To emphasize the default nature of male words for all people, the following passages are quoted from the King James Version, as with Deuteronomy 15:12 above.

Deuteronomy 15:2--"And this is the manner of the release: every creditor that lendeth aught unto his neighbor shall release it: he shall not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother, because it is called the Lord's release."

Deuteronomy 22:1-3--"Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.  And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thy own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and though shalt restore it to him again.  In like manner shalt thou do with his ass, and so shalt thou do with his raiment: and with all lost things of thy brother's which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself."

Deuteronomy 24:7--"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise out of him, or selleth him: then that thief shall die, and thou shalt put away evil from among you."

Deuteronomy 24:10-11--"When thou dost lend thy brother anything, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge.  Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee."

Deuteronomy 25:3--"Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee."

Matthew 18:15--"'Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.'"

Luke 17:3--"'Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and he repent, forgive him.'"

Even aside from the fact that the male language of "brother" or "brethren" in these verses in light of Deuteronomy 15:12's wording in English and Hebrew alone encompasses all people, male or female, there are separate, blatant affirmations that some of these things would have to be gender neutral even if someone never looked past the male language of a given verse and looked past the gender equality of Genesis 1:26-27.  Concerning how Deuteronomy 25:1-3 speaks of a man (a human), a "brother", being flogged, Exodus 21:20-21 in Hebrew and all English translations explicitly mentions male and female slaves being subjected to corporal punishment and only condemns abuses of this, while Leviticus 19:20 in the KJV and NKJV makes it clear that the offending woman in question would be flogged (though the NKJV makes it clear that of course the man would be punished the same way as well).  Deuteronomy 25:1-3's lashes are the default punishment for criminal sins when nothing else is specified, and since men and women are equal (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-2) and therefore equally guilty for the same sins and deserving of the same punishments, only an idiot would ever think that Deuteronomy 25:1-3 even in isolation limits corporal punishment to men, as if they deserve greater physical harshness or as if women are morally superior and would never do anything worthy of lashes!

As for the money and property-related teachings of Deuteronomy 15:2, 22:1-3, and 24:10-11, Deuteronomy 15:12-18 specifically affirms that women can have their own property, married or not.  Never is a woman owning property condemned, and it follows necessarily from both genders having God's image that of course both can hold their own property, but Deuteronomy 15:12-18 directly says that female slaves of a person's own country, upon release, should be liberally supplied with belongings just like freed male slaves.  If a woman who has just come out of slavery is allowed to own property, of course a lifelong free woman could!  However, the plain clarification in Deuteronomy 15:12 that a man or woman is in view with the word "brother", aside from other male words demonstrably being the default for people of both genders in older translations of the Bible, means that the references to a brother are references to a fellow person or a person from one's own country depending on the context.

There are obviously, to a rational person, many ways to show that these verses in their older male-default language, even on their own, are not saying that women are not to have their debts cancelled, to not be given corporal punishment (which would be sexist against men), or to not possess property of their own.  They simply do not say such a thing.  Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2, in saying that men and women bear God's image, would nevertheless have clear ramifications for gender equality in victimization by sins (see also Exodus 21:15, 17, 26-32, and many more), the perpetration of sin, and the punishment for sin (see also Leviticus 20:15-16, 27, Numbers 5:5-7, and more), for the moral rights and obligations of both would be the same.  Many verses in Mosaic Law and the general Old Testament use male language after specifically referencing both genders (Exodus 21:20-21, Job 31:13-15, and Isaiah 24:1-6 are more examples), so unless the context excludes it, both genders are always being mentioned/addressed wherever there is male language.

Yes, since men and women have no gender-specific psychological traits, there could not even be this basis for different treatment of men and women when literal anatomy is not the issue; it is logically impossible for having certain genitalia to be metaphysically tied to moral rights or personality characteristics, since one does not entail the other and since different people are individuals.  The objective logical truths about what does and does not follow from physical gender and about individualism refute the very possibility of religious or secular complementarianism--that is, this is not even something that could have been true but is not, in the same way that grass could have been perceived to be red instead of green, though it is not.  The Bible would have to be consistent with these logically necessary facts to even possibly be true, and it is both consistent with them and directly affirmative of them.  The way that Deuteronomy 15:12 specifies, as many other verses in older translations of the Bible do, that women are often also addressed or included by words like man, he, and brother is one way the Bible does this.