Final answer:
It is true that many cases addressing constitutional questions of sexual discrimination have involved men seeking equal treatment under the law. Gender discrimination claims are evaluated under intermediate scrutiny, requiring a substantial relationship between the differential treatment and an important government objective.
Step-by-step explanation:
Many of the litigants in cases arising constitutional questions about sexual discrimination have indeed been men seeking equality with women in their treatment under the law, which can be considered true.
Discrimination based on gender or sex is generally subjected to the intermediate scrutiny standard. When a law discriminates by gender, it must pass this more stringent test, which requires it to be "substantially related to an important governmental objective." This standard is less demanding than the strict scrutiny applied to race or national origin but more demanding than the rational basis test generally applied to other forms of discrimination.
Notable cases include the Supreme Court's decision in Craig v. Boren, which initiated the use of intermediate scrutiny in gender discrimination cases, as well as more recent developments requiring the integration of women into previously male-dominated areas, such as public education institutions and military combat roles, although exceptions such as the Selective Service System persist.