from what I understand, while human males differ from male chimps by about 1% in genome*, that still means that human males are more closely related to male chimps than they are to human females.
These comparisons are stupid. How do you compare the similarity of books? Letter counts? Word counts? Is Romeo & Juliet more similar to Captain Underpants than its own translation into Italian?
What is your metric?
The point is our measures of genetic “distance” aren’t precise enough to make statements like OP’s. At least half of it is eukaryotic operating code, and much of the remaining is “junk” DNA we’re only beginning to understand
That's my point. Two different books of similar length in the same language will probably diff more closely than the same book translated. (Even if we limit ourselves to the same character set.) That says nothing about the content, just the encoding.
If you take into account that one of the 46 is essentially inactivated in females, that's obviously another story; but as far as nucleotides go, the genetic difference between male and female humans is 1/46th.