This is because you are falling into the NAXALT/AXALT fallacy that those of us in behavioral economics do not, because we understand all descriptions of all populations refer to distributions (inequalities) rather than flat-lines (equalities).
Ergo, when we are speaking of causal behaviors (sex differences we are speaking of causality, and when we are speaking of some part of a given distribution we are speaking of resulting observations in a distribution.
And yes we fully understand that to those who are new to our work, or new to the field of behavioral Econ, that this is counter-intuitive, and often confusing because it’s not clear which we’re talking about without understanding how to determine the context.
IE most of us have relationships with women we love deeply and children as well. And usually with women who don’t demonstrate the margins. That does not mean when we are describing some trend in sex differences in behavior we will not point out the general trend in the distribution that if unmediated will manifest in antisocial behavior.
Hugs and such 😉
Reply addressees: @anonygen166231 @cremieuxrecueil