ERA YES?...or NO?

Gail Heriot gets some issues on the table fast at Instapundit. (And, incidentally, if you'd have told me a couple of years ago that I'd be reading Instapundit, I'd have laughed in your face...)
I don't really deserve an opinion on the ERA, though I did formerly have passionate views about it. I was for it...then I was formally against it because I thought everything it did was already done by the 14th Amendment. Now I'm not so sure of that...but I've also come to think that, were it passed, we can basically be certain that it will Title IXed...i.e. it will be turned to nefarious progressive purposes, e.g. used to advance transgender ideology. Obviously I'm in favor of protecting people with non-standard sexual preferences and non-standard appearances and self-representations...within reason. But men can't be women nor vice-versa, and I'm against passing any legislation--let alone a Constitutional amendment--that might be twisted to the contrary. In fact, I've moved to the right on such issues generally, as I've been convinced by conservatives that it's part of the logic of the left to expand the powers of the state that benefit their agenda...especially via the courts. I might change my mind back on that...but that's where I--largely ignorantly--stand right now.
   I do think that women keep getting the short end of the stick every time their interest competes with that of another group...but still, for now anyway, I'm back to being mostly against the ERA.
   Incidentally, if passed--and enforced--I wonder whether it'd benefit men in academia?