"A study in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that men had an average of 26 lbs. (12 kilograms) more skeletal muscle mass than women. Women also exhibited about 40 percent less upper-body strength and 33 percent less lower-body strength, on average, the study found."
Just breaking this down so we can map the possibilities and not fall apart into binaries: First, the female gender has, until very recently been literally hobbled and socialized to avoid sweat and any kind of physical efforts. My grandmother wore girdles and her mother wore corsets and they both only wore heels. So, we are new to sport and training and, we are catching up. Give us a century. Second, It depends on how you define stronger: “The hypothesis that the survival advantage of women has fundamental biological underpinnings is supported by the fact that under very harsh conditions females survive better than males even at infant ages when behavioral and social differences may be minimal or favor males.” https://www.pnas.org/content/115/4/E832.full and https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/7b6484fb-3b00-46d6-a5...
This is delusional nonsense. Just because women have better endurance and survival advantages in specific situations like very long distance running and conditions in that paper doesn’t mean they aren’t physically weaker than men by massive margins. And it certainly doesn’t mean that their weaker bodies are due to social conditioning.
-- source https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000....