You haven't offered any evidence on why a random man in, say, the U.S. has more in common with a random man in, say, Sierra Leone than, say, a man or a woman who may be siblings or even twins. You think it is one way and I think it is the other. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Actually I believe the issue here is that you are struggling to understand what I mean when I say "remove societal influence".
Where you are born is literally only societal influence, that's not an innate property at all. In fact it is almost as far as you can get from an innate property.
You're also pointing out extreme outliers as some sort of gotcha when the entire point is talking about population-level discrepancies and averages. Indeed, you can cherry pick whatever you want in order to get desired results. The question is, when you select two people completely at random, and you only look at intrinsic characteristics, will sex be the biggest differentiator on average? You might disagree, but the vast majority of people will not. Said another way, which is more common throughout history – societies that segregate based on sex, or societies that segregate based on weight?
When I say "men are stronger than women", is your response really to say "well I bet I can cherry pick a woman and cherry pick a man and the woman will be stronger than the man"? You can do that of course, but that would clearly not be taking my argument in good faith.
This is the issue, you can't test against "no societal influence". And societal influence is that powerfull of a factor for comportments that any biological factor is negligible. Or maybe gender difference is only a small factor and not a negligible, one but how do you test for that? It is impossible.
FYI: kids don't differentiate themselves until at least 3, sometime it can last longer (a lot longer). Puberty hit betwwen 11 and 15. I have a sightly ethically challenged experiment i would like to run...
