> the difference between men and women on most metrics

I think that's the problem part of your argument. There's no qualification of what "most metrics" includes, much less whether that holds true for must neurological effects (which is more to the point), and that's before we even get around to discussing the fact that I'm sure there's a bunch of metrics we don't even know about.

Your statement might be entirely true. Unfortunately I don't know enough to judge the claims in it, I don't even know if we're at a level where we can judge the claims, and regardless you didn't provide any evidence to support it or help with that in any way. I'm not sure how it brings us any closer to an understanding of the issue.

Edit: rationale on down votes would be appreciated...

Because we do known that men and women are neurologically different. There's a wealth of evidence suggesting so. And considering what we know about sexual dimorphism, this is completely unsurprising.

I was responding to a comment that said "My point here is that the difference between men and women on most metrics tends to be more heavily influenced by other external factors."

Given the topic, I took that as an argument that the neurological differences are not as pronounced as what is created by external factors, and I was responding to the lack of evidence provided for that view (which I interpret as the opposite of the view you suggested).

I actually lean towards your position, but I wasn't trying to express that as an argument (I'm unqualified to). I was just trying to point out what I saw as at best very loose reasoning (at least when provided without evidence).