It's not novel to claim that the possibility of men going full Genghis Khan might result in greater trait-variability for men and explain the Lek paradox and so

It's not novel to claim that the possibility of men going full Genghis Khan might result in greater trait-variability for men and explain the Lek paradox and so forth. The paper seems to distance itself from Bateman's principle but I can't figure how it meaningfully differs besides being framed very weirdly.