Men also developed brains that were, flat out, more logic and risk oriented. It was necessary to plan out hunts logically and take risks in order to get food on the table for their mate and children within a tribe.
Women evolved to better care for children. Bodies that maximized child birthing and rearing potential. Their bodies needed to minimize energy use to compensate for the increased energy needs of the males, and frankly women did not need larger bodies because they were not out hunting all day.
Evolutionary psychology is mostly bullshit. It lacks a lot of the indicia of real science, in that, much like other nonsense like Freudian psychology, it's great at explaining stuff that already happened, but terrible at predicting future events. That said, it's hard to argue against the general concept that things that led to the death of your species in earlier days had no impact on the genes that got spread.
Men tended to hunt, women tended to gather. The earliest societies were based on this division of labor. Some of these early hunter-gatherer societies exist to this day and are among the most stable societies that ever existed. The ones that exist to this day have often existed, in the same form, for tens of thousands of years, even before written language.
If men's brains have one thing over women's, it's chucking objects. That requires a certain amount of physics. Chucking a spear at some animal that knows you want to kill it and is trying to avoid that means you not only have to calculate the physics of the spear you're chucking, you also have to anticipate the reaction of the animal, and where it will be when the spear you chuck actually hits. Get this right, and your tribe feasts. Get it wrong, and you starve, or whatever you're chucking the spear at has it with your shit and kills you.
Women have better vision, and see more colors, as a statistical norm. This is partly because the code for color-sensing cones in the eye is on the X chromosome. And they have two. This is also why males are more likely to be color-blind, as if they get a crappy version of the cone code on their single X chromosome, they don't have another one to compensate. And the (admittedly retarded) evo psych explanation for this is women tended to gather plants and slight differences in color were the differences between nutritious and deadly poison.
Still, don't put too much stock in this because it's crap. It's fun to wank off with this kind of stuff but it really means nothing. That said, there are obviously actual differences between the sexes, a man can't turn into a woman just by saying so, and Jim Sterling is a faggot desperately whoring for attention.
Among the things troons do, discounting evolutionary psychology is almost certainly the least of their offenses, since evolutionary psychology is
mostly bullshit that anyone on the Internet can do[*] and requires no expert.
[*]And sort of to prove my point, I just actually did it with this absolutely made-up crap vaguely based on other science, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. I think what I said makes sense, but if you read EP crap from other people, this is the kind of shit they say. It kind of makes sense, but where's your proof?
