Good point, and I can live with both having the same rates. If it ever gets to government life insurance, I'll be on your side.
A mandate is not government insurance. It is simply government selecting winners they list for you... A more valid analogy would be if the government required you to purchase life insurance without regard to need or desire, then you'd be for forcing the penis tax to go away. Either things are equal or they're not. Actuarial tables notwithstanding, if you are for gender inequality in one insurance arena you should be for it everywhere.
However, I'm good with everybody having the same rate for insurance. Apples to apples it should all be equal. I do believe that I should be able to have a catastrophic option and use my HSA for every day costs though. In such coverage, it isn't likely I'd have an apples to apples comparison there. If I want to pay for insurance that pays for every iota, basically pre-paid care, then it should be equal for either gender.