>>12473530>FALSE MANLET, Primates has systematically larger male dysmorphismWe already have evidence of male larger dimorphism being out competed by female larger dimorphism in primates (meaning even in primates male larger dimorphism is a worse trait)
>"Evolutionary dynamics of sexual size dimorphism in non-volant mammals following their independent colonization of Madagascar">WRONG & EXTREMELY LOW IQ. You might think that lungs are a suboptimal trait and that humans are better off with gills. But reasonable people understand the notion of biological niche and competition over that niche. We already know that the energy cost of male larger dimorphic species is far higher than female larger dimorphic species, meaning that given the same amount of food, female larger species can support a larger population and have higher fitness
>"Mechanisms for Sex Differences in Energy Homeostasis" NIHMS1506392>"Sex differences in energy expenditure in non-human primates" The energy expenditure of a species applies across all environments.
We already know that species with female larger dimorphism have more varied genomes (because they do not bottleneck themselves to only a handful of males mating) which means they are healthier and more immune to diseases
>https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1372All these facts hold true across all species. Even in humans males have gotten smaller than they used to be despite having access to better nutrition.
Scientifically speaking, women are supposed to be bigger than men. Male larger dimorphism is a trait of a species that is bottlenecked in most ways. It works for a species, but not as well as it could. Every species would have greater numbers and higher individual fitness with female larger dimorphism.
There is no reason to spend resources on making males big. It does nothing but take resources away from the females, where size actually does matter.
