In that case, there may be a flaw in argument. Your anecdotal story doesn't disprove their point. The moment you started powerlifting training for 3 months, you've already became stronger than the average male. Most men on Earth don't do any sort of strength training, and it's not unreasonable to think that these men are not much stronger than the average woman.
I don't think I'm arguing against your evidence. It's your idea that this difference in men and women's strength is simply explained by a difference in testosterone. This claim does not nullify the questions posed in the article.
Both biology and the environment play roles in defining people's personality and physique. Higher testosterone is only a piece of biology's role, but it's only loosely related to environment's role. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to claim society's artificial rules placed on women might have had an effect on women's physique through things like sexual selection. This is why scientists still explore these things.
Estrogen is also a hell of a drug... It's actully a point in the article that people give testosterone too much credit and estrogen not enough credit when it comes to how they affect the physique.
Your argument being founded on the effects of testosterone is not a good one...
Not with that attitude.
Remember when you had to get your friends and family to use Facebook? I do. Most (may be all) social media platforms are opt in. People are not born with a Facebook account.
This is not a reason, but rather a means to absolve yourself from engaging with a platform you know is toxic.
I think we really gotta stop lying to ourselves when we say "it's a good way to stay in touch with people". It's a way to stay in touch, but most of the shit you see on Facebook these days have little to nothing to do with the people you actually care about.
There are much better ways to stay in touch with others. For example, friend or family discord communities is a far superior way when compared to any Meta platform.
It feels a but ridiculous that you are using "less work hours due to pregnancy and childcare" as your primary explanation for why women make less over multi-decades long career.
Women go on pregnancy leave for months. How can this explain less pay for years of working?
Yes, like you stopping to peddle your bike...
A simple force diagram and application of newton's 2nd law predicts the bike should accelerate to the left while it's velocity is towards the right. This means the bike should slow down.
As a high school physics teacher, if this is the hill you're willing to die on, then you neither understood the content in your high school physics class nor your university physics class. Newton's 2nd law is generally accurate in most scenarios even without simplifications.
Saying "coincidence" is basically claiming there is no reason for an observed pattern. This is really more of a last resort when considering explanations for certain patterns, because it's probably the weakest claim someone can make.
Generally, patterns are not coincidence because if an outcome is truly a result of randomness, then there is an extremely low chance that there would be a pattern.
Also, 12 is not the whole data set. The whole data set should include the people who weren't hired during the hiring process. This is unknown to us.