[frickinLasers]

Perhaps it's not controversial in your circles. I realize this is anectodal, but I've dated two women pursuing a PhD in a STEM field, both smarter than me in many ways. The second I began to suggest the reason for my greater physical strength might be biological in origin, they both became completely irrational. They somehow believe biology plays no part in the differences between men and women--or maybe that there is no biological difference at all (?). Imagine the intellectual revolt that would occur if I were to bring up this GMVH hypothesis.

There's something about the "girls can do anything" mantra (which I totally agree with!) that seems to translate to "no girl has ever been less capable than anyone at anything as long as they try hard enough." Any theory or evidence contradicting that notion is nonsense.

[todd8]

I’ve had similar, surprising conversations with well educated women who believe that differences in physical strength between men and women have no biological basis. Maybe they were taught that; they didn’t have first hand experience training as an athlete in a strength related sport.

My daughter, who is very strong and is stronger than her brothers, wouldn’t even compete if she had to go up against men in her sport, powerlifting. It’s very obvious in that sport that sex related hormones make a difference.