Would you agree that women are, anatomically speaking, weaker than men?

[JDPriestly]

216. No! Because it is not true!

Women live longer than men. That is proof of greater physical health and strength. And women have a more important biological function -- giving birth and being the primary caregivers to children. (Men cannot nurse a baby, for example.)

It is absurd and, in terms of the survival of humankind, irrelevant, to measure strength in terms of upper body strength or the ability to run fast. In fact, some of the male characteristics that are claimed here to be signs of superior strength are simply given to men in order to enable them to mate with females. Upper body strength for example is useful in mating. And, to laugh a little about this topic, maybe the ability to run faster serves the same mating purpose. But always, the goal is to mate and then to protect the female who can nurse the babies and otherwise keep the species new generation alive.

So in terms of the biological goals of life like continuing the species on earth, women are far stronger. And after from the view of pure biology, the purpose is to keep the species going, survival of the species. Men provide the sperm and then are of little use other than to protect the new generation of the species. So women are, if measured in terms of biology, in my understanding, much stronger and more important than men and superior to men.