The Law of Moses is often pretty sparse in its wording, and it’s worth emphasizing that certain laws require a reasoned application of gender differences.
Deuteronomy 25 has two different examples of an opposite nature. The first example is verses 1-3, which give the famous limitation on beatings: “Forty blows he may give him and no more, lest he should exceed this and beat him with many blows above these, and your brother be humiliated in your sight.” But what about women? Presumably public beatings of women were rare, since women were far less likely to commit the sorts of crimes deserving of beatings. But surely there must have been occasions to beat women judicially. Women are technically capable of horrible crimes too, after all. Presumably if a woman was beaten judicially, the limit would be lower than the usual 40 blows. In an Ancient Israelite context bear in mind these were blows from a staff or some sort of club, and 40 blows would be quite severe. A man can survive such a beating, but it’s conceivable a woman might not. Even if a women could survive 40 blows with a staff or club, it surely would take fewer than 40 blows for her to be excessively “humiliated in your sight” as the verse describes. In other words, although a gender difference is not stated anywhere in this legislation limiting beatings, presumably a gender differences would’ve applied anyway. The outlier situation simply isn’t mentioned.
A second example in the chapter is Deut 25.11-12, which says: “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.” (NKJV) Crushing or ripping off a man’s testicles, or even coming close to doing so, is obviously a huge deal. But why does the law specify a woman committing this offense and not a man? What if a fellow man reached out and tried to destroy another man’s genitals? I can only assume that the wording of this law takes for granted that a fellow man would never do such a shameful thing. But hypothetically, if a fellow man did do the same thing as the woman in this passage, then surely the man should have his hand chopped off too.
Just because the outlier situations aren’t mentioned in the law doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Mosaic Law did not give Israelites precise legislation for every situation; instead it gave them principles they could apply in just about any case they might encounter.