but fairer is considered better, all things being equal.

Fairness is an objective good to most people.

I would disagree with that, because the requirements for fairness typically disadvantage a majority in favor of leveling the field for a minority. Ergo, most people will gripe about the actual policies, even if they agree with the abstract end goal.

That depends on how 'fairness' is defined. Your definition of fairness appears to exclude a set of concepts which you see as unfair.

It's not a good rhetorical tactic to cede the concept of fairness; better to argue "that thing being done in the name of fairness, is actually unfair".

I would define fairness as equality of opportunity, for every person.

Hence the previous comment's tautology that fairness will not be an objective good for most people, because (a) most people prefer their own self interest, (b) the status quo provides majorities advantages that minorities do not share, and (c) objective fairness will thus come at the expense of the majority (who are by definition more numerous than the minority).

It's interesting most people are interpreting my comment as a preference, vs an observation.

The alternative also has a name: The "Tyranny of the Majority".

Fairness is better than tyranny, don't you think?

That stance is also known as, "Fuck you, I've got mine."

I personally, despite also being in a number of majority classes, prefer to avoid being an asshole because of an accident of birth.

Be that as it may in your case, are you arguing that most people will act contrary to their own best interests?

That seems a shaky foundation to build policy on.