Sorry, but: Fuck political correctness, yes. Women are on average inferior physically
Define "inferior". And no, it does not mean "worse at professional sports".
I may have forgotten a thousand other factors, but I will say this: as you enjoy evolutionary explanations you might consider that if procreation is all that matters to the human male (as you argued in the other thread), then the male should be utterly inferior. After all, the female is the one who would (according to the script) have to stay with and protect the child, whereas the male would already have spawned and left and could be, evolutionarily speaking, discarded.
(Or possibly serve as food. That's how certain spiders worked it out.)
This is a major problem with evolutionary explanations for physical and psychological trends. It's very, very easy to come up with whatever hypothetical evolutionary explanation you want without being expected to test or verify any of it, so all options are open. Even if something
is the result of environment/society/upbringing, you can come up with a plausible-sounding evolutionary-minded "reason" for it and face surprisingly little question. There's a word for this: "Just-so stories". If you really felt like it, you could come up with some "evolutionary" reason right now for, say, girls wearing pink as infants, and it would be about as verifiable as most of the junk evolutionary theory that's thrown out there.
It should also be stated that evolutionary explanations for human traits is complicated by factors most people utterly fail to take into account, such as the fact that we're a social species, meaning that we have more use (even to our own genetic propagation) than simply successfully reproducing, and whether a trait is "negative" or not can be surprisingly hard to ascertain, since in group dynamics, a trait that is negative to the individual but still positive to his group (yes, such traits exist) can be, on the whole, beneficial towards his (and his group's) genetic stock. In this sense, the trait is even beneficial to him, since it makes him valuable.
I'm curious which superior trait should I then be most proud of: my relative weakness to g-forces, my greater risk of suffering color blindness or hemophilia, or that smashing sex-linked degenerative muscle disease?
Oh, and as long as we're throwing around current norms as if they're definitely-for-sure biological imperatives, we might as well mention the lower life expectancy and higher risk of certain forms of cancer and cardiovascular conditions.