^ Thank you
EDITED VERSION:
Sex, ethnicity, intelligence, handiness, orientation, tastes... yes, we are all different, good job there.
It's like when you give poor people the conditions to develop something ambitious (and I do not mean an "empire" peddling this or that crap), the more satisfied they remain with developing commonplace projects, operating in the most conventional way... even those who want to be "innovative" and become the next big thing; or give people more access to any sort of information from all eras and locations, get people to "read more", and then what to you get, more democracy, more geniuses?: no "social media". That's "power to the people" for you. The same applies, obviously, to scholars: let them have access to more information, to develop more and vaster, wilder theories, what do you get: more clarity? More entanglement and, given that "democracy" allows scholars to increase exponentially, even more of it than ever was.
So, back to the sex vertex in that human prism, is the point that we men are more unstable, testosteronic (commonly called "agressiveness" or being "macho"), while menstruation makes women more empathetic and less spoilt, being more used to suffering at least once a month?
Maybe JP Arrogant's point is like with that about homosexuality and effeminacy or butchness, that "data", in an overwhelming majority of cases, every other sociocultural o ethnic consideration aside, shows that the more you are attracted to men and manliness, the manlier you are yourself, and the same for gay women and "womanness"?