> You are wrong
But also:
> Many more people would find it offensive ... Is somehow a result of femaleness tout-court
But the person you're replying to seems to be saying that if there is some ingrained female-related cause, it couldn't be discussed today.
How does the second thing I quoted from you not directly agree with the comment you replied to?
On the other hand, the entire posted article goes at length to study the social impact of social media for young people and young girls in particular and routinely references the heightened effect of the hyper focus on bodies for young girls.
Their comment is just a naked assertion. Would people find it offensive? Well, if the entire basis for your point is a strawman, then yes. But as far as I can tell, there is no causal evidence between femaleness and social media addiction or suicidal ideation. The need to leap to biological causation is unwarranted and unsupported.
Acting like they're already agrieved is a rhetorical slight of hand without substance.
It’s hardly fair to call that a “leap”, especially given the comparatively limited body of evidence in support of your preferred hypothesis.
And yet the charts look wildly different.
That said, much of those studies where later found to be mostly wrong, and testosterone tend to be a bad predictor and a very weak influence on behavior. It seems more that hormones have a stronger influence on shaping culture than it has on shaping behavior.