[BurningFrog]

Rereading, I'm struck by this quote:

> If those distribution differences were constant over a long time, say a thousand years, and constant globally, then your argument might have a leg to stand on.

So your standard of proof here 1000 years of studies, until you can agree that there is a chance this could be true.

Obviously, nothing anyone can say convince someone with such firm beliefs.

I agree there is miscommunication. I've been as clear as I can be, and I don't think any amount of me restating things can reach you.

[dahart]

A thousand years was just an example of something that could make your argument above work, or at least not disprove it immediately. Your argument doesn’t currently work because gender preference distributions have been changing dramatically in the last hundred years, and they’re still changing. Recent history disproves the notion that current preferences, and the current discrepancies between the sexes, might be intrinsic.

I’m ignoring your ad hominem, but FWIW it weakens your argument because it demonstrates you didn’t understand mine. It has also become clear you didn’t fully understand my question. So, yes, you could keep restating that cultural differences exist or bringing up other irrelevant things like personality tests, and yes, that will continue to fail to show that intrinsic sex differences exist.