[scotty79]

There are measurable differences, sure. There's ongoing discussion how many of them should be attributed to being a male and how many to being a man. The ones attributed to being a man are no different in nature than the ones attributed to being a Leo. They are cultural. They are stornger, but only because the human culture is (and was) much more obsessed about gender than the zodiac. Also because zodiac is completely empty but men/women piggybacks on the real male/female differences.

Male/female differences are real and objective but they manifest mostly on the long tails of normal distribution. When you exclude the outliers that male sex has way more of then differences between sexes shrink to almost nothing across nearly all qualities.

[d-z-m]

> there's ongoing discussion how many of them should be attributed to being a male and how many to being a man. The ones attributed to being a man are no different in nature than the ones attributed to being a Leo. They are cultural.

I don't think you can uncouple "being male" and "being a man" so easily. For thousands of years these two have been interlinked. I would argue, one informing and influencing the other in a sort of cultural epigenetic dance.

This goes back to my original objection with your comment, I don't think that "I'm a man" is objectively meaningless, but at this point I'm arguing semantics :^).