I think anything that tries to brush 50% with a hue that isn't literal biological fact is tenuous and gets people's backs up. e.g. > Men are more violent than

I think anything that tries to brush 50% with a hue that isn't literal biological fact is tenuous and gets people's backs up. e.g. > Men are more violent than women. I mean that's somewhat factual (i.e. considering crime rates) but the very mention of the phrase is tinged with ulterior motive so it becomes taboo. Basically you're better off sticking to literal difference, avoiding sociologically and focusing on differences being social or cultural because then you won't piss off up to 50% of people and people are more likely listen to you. e.g. > The way we bring up men and the societal pressures placed upon them makes them more violent than women. I think less people are gonna be mad about that and then you can use it as a stepping stone to make whatever point this was your platform for. Sure it might actually be less _correct_ then the other way of putting it (I don't know the science precisely enough to judge either way) but that's taboo for ya. Unless you're writing specific science about the biological differences between men and women it doesn't matter that you made the same point differently.