Reddit mentions of The Gender and Science Reader

>Well, yes, unfortunately, (for the most part) males are stronger than females. I had linked to another SRSD thread where /u/CotRA had cited a study that showed that "90% of females produced less force than 95% of males".

I would recommend you read the Gender and Science Reader, particularly the paper "In Pursuit of Difference" by Lynda Birke, which also cites a case in Bali where the strength difference between men and women is substantially reduced, to a point which she suggests is close to parity. What needs to be understood is that often these strength studies are situated in a sociological context, where relative strengths of individuals are influenced by that context. This is not to say that biology does not exist, but Quietuus is right to suggest that society has a powerful influence on what we consider to be an "essential" difference, and the fact that it is put in scientific language in the way you describe doesn't make it any more epistemologically valid. All such studies are able to state is that within the social context of western society, the assigned class of men are stronger than women, but this does not substantiate why this is. Again, this isn't to say biology don't real, but rather to say that a biocultural model is necessary in order to properly evaluate and come to accurate conclusions. At very least, I would say the bell curves are much closer than western-situated data would suggest.