Discuss the pros of "gender-neutral" sentencing.

According to Nagel and Johnson (see the source below), laws put into place in the 1980s that stipulated mandatory sentences were intended to eliminate race, gender, and class disparities in sentencing. As the authors point out, these laws had the advantage of making the criteria behind sentencing decisions clearer and revised a system of sentencing that was largely discretionary. Therefore, the factors that go into a judge's sentencing decisions are more transparent in the era of gender-neutral sentencing. Gender-neutral sentencing could, in theory, lead to sentencing laws that are fairer and less biased across the board for defendants of different races, genders, and classes. 
Historically, women have received more lenient sentences than men, in part because women are seen as less violent. In addition, as Gertner (see the source below) writes, women defendants are often mothers and have familial responsibilities that are often different than those of men. However, gender-neutral sentencing laws are intended to get rid of the disparities in sentencing for men and women.
Sources:



Gertner, Nancy. "Women Offenders and the Sentencing Guidelines." Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2002. 
Nagel, Ilene H., and Johnson, Barry L. "The Role of Gender in a Structured Sentencing System: Equal Treatment, Policy Choices, and the Sentencing of Female Offenders under the United States Sentencing Guidelines." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume 85 Issue 1, Summer 1994.