Also, since when males were supposed to be an "experimental sex"? Are you trying to prove greater male variability with your own philosophical interpretation of nature? That doesn't work, because what objectively males are is parasitoid genestealers, who have no purpose existing outside of perpetuating themselves. This is something geneticists will openly admit to you, because all the benefits that males supposedly bring to the species are heavily outweighted by negatives such as their high cost of production. Not to mention sexual reproduction is only theoretically good to weed out bad mutations, but practically is not helping with that at all (men accumulate a shit ton of mutations due to their rapid sperm production for starters).

[...]

PS: I cannot provide sources for my claims, sorry, but they are either searchable or logically coherent. The reason for it is that I gave up collecting all those studies like pokemons and deleted them all from my favorites, because it was really some kind of soul-draining consumerism. Ideally, just saying one contradiction should be enough to disprove it (as per the status of hypothesis) and yet I feel pressured to overexplain myself to cover all the weak spots possible. That's because people believe such things, like "women are more emotional", because they want, and therefore all the evidence for the validity of said ideas is literally fabricated by the virtue of self-fullfilling prophecy.