Don't Tell Me: Critical Thinking: What Is It and Can I Buy It Online?

By Mark Schwieso

Today, we live in a complacent country where only certain answers are acceptable.

In this book, the author dares to go against accepted wisdom, considering questions such as:

• Is the divorce rate really 50%—and if it isn’t, what is it and why should we care?

• Why is the media telling us COVID-19 is so bad?

• Do we really know Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to be true?

• Has the Bible been disproven and debunked?

Other topics include the Big Bang Theory, biological differences between men and women, politics and religion, random mutations, UFOs, and global myths.

The author also explains that the best lies are 99% true—liars practice their craft using the truth to mislead others. Moreover, he notes that no matter what you believe, truth is still true. For instance, even if a person believes they can fly, if they jump off a ten-story building, they will still die upon hitting the ground.

Join the author as he asks questions that the establishment would prefer you keep to yourself by reading Don’t Tell Me.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Aug 19, 2022
• ISBN: 9781664267862

Mark Schwieso

Mark Schwieso received an honorable discharge from the United States Marine Corps in 1992, after serving in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He graduated with honors from Missouri State University with a degree in international business and a minor in German. He earned an MBA from MidAmerican Christian University, graduating with a 4.0 GPA. He received a graduate diploma from Air Command and Staff College. He ran his own blog, The Conservative GANDR, for several years, and ran for Oklahoma’s state congress in 2006 and state senate in 2012.

Book preview

DON’T

TELL ME

CRITICAL THINKING:

WHAT IS IT AND

CAN I BUY IT ONLINE?

MARK SCHWIESO

55269.png

Copyright © 2022 Mark Schwieso.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means,

graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by

any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author

except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson & Zondervan

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

844-714-3454

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in

this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views

expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are

models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Unless otherwise noted, scripture taken from the New King James Version®.

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New

International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica,

Inc.® Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The NIV and New International Version are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.®

ISBN: 978-1-6642-6787-9 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6642-6788-6 (hc)

ISBN: 978-1-6642-6786-2 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022909990

WestBow Press rev. date: 08/04/2022

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Relevant Discussions

Introduction

COVID-19 (CDC, 2021)

Biological Differences in the Sexes and Impacts

Politics and Religion

Statistics

Divorce Rate

Conclusion

Chapter 2 The Big Bang

Introduction

The Big Bang

The Anthropic Principle

In the Beginning

Earth

You Are the Air I Breathe

The Core of the Problem

On the Rocks

Conclusion

Chapter 3 Evolution

Introduction

Descent

Mutations

The Engine Driving Mutations

In the Beginning

Descent with Modification through Natural Selection to Human Beings

Evolution Conclusion

The Intangibles

Chapter 4 The Historicity of the Bible (The Old Testament)

Introduction

Divine Creation

Old Testament Time Lines and Egypt

Jews in Egypt

Other Biblical Synchronisms with Egypt

Conclusion

Chapter 5 The New Testament

Introduction

New Testament Fidelity

The Fidelity of the Message

External Evidence

Archaeological Evidence and Biblical Contradictions

Tackling Jesus

The Crucifixion

Christianity Conclusion

Don’t Tell Me—Conclusion

References

55295.png

CHAPTER 1

Relevant Discussions

The difference between Opinion and Principle is Conviction.

—Mark Schwieso

I.   Introduction

How many bottles in a six-pack? my stepdad asked me all the time.

I don’t know … Four? would be my best guess based on my age.

Why did my dad ask me this? His attempt at being funny? Maybe he was getting a kick out of being mean to a four-year-old who couldn’t figure out a self-answering question. No one ever accused him of being kind or even nice for that matter.

Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb? That was another of his riddles I couldn’t figure out. How in the world was a four-year-old supposed to know who was buried in some dumb tomb?

I never did figure out why he used to always ask these questions and others, but I did learn from them. How many bottles in a six-pack? That taught me to pay attention to the question, more than just to the obvious though. Eventually, I learned to look for nuance as well as the premise of a question and assumptions that went into the answer.

Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb? That taught me my biggest lesson: Don’t accept every answer, even obviously correct answers, as the complete and absolute truth. Learn the answer, and know it for yourself. You might learn there is so much more to a story.

Ulysses S. Grant was a US president and the general who won the war for the North in the Civil War. He wasn’t buried in Washington, DC, or in Arlington Cemetery, VA, as befitting such an august general who made such an incredible impact on US history. Instead, his tomb overlooks the Hudson River in New York because of the love of a husband for his wife and the love of a wife for her husband. Grant wanted to be buried next to his wife, which did not happen in military cemeteries in Grant’s time as women were not allowed. Also, Grant’s wife wanted to visit her husband, so she wanted him close to her in New York.

It is true that Ulysses Grant is in the tomb, but so is his wife, Julia, and some speculate his dog as well. Also, they were not buried. They were entombed in matching sarcophagi aboveground.

Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb? To be technically correct, no one is buried there.

Who’s entombed in Grant’s tomb? Again, being technically correct, Grant and his wife, Julia, and his dog (probably) are entombed in New York because both could not be without the other even in death. To me, this is a much better and more completely true and fulfilling answer than Grant.

Since then, I’ve learned two even greater truths tangential to these two lessons.

1. The best lies are 99% true. A partial truth may be 100% true, but it isn’t 100% of the truth, so it can actually be a lie. So a person can actually tell a lie, using the truth. What? Seriously?

2. Truth is true regardless if you believe it. I can believe all I want that I have the inherent ability to fly, but if I jump off a ten-story building, my belief in my inherent flying ability won’t stop a quick introduction to the concrete sidewalk below.

This is important because today, students as well as the general population of the United States are not taught to learn; they are told what to believe. They are not encouraged to research facts and discover for themselves the truths they are seeking. They are stifled and encouraged not to look into the details; they are even ridiculed if they have the audacity to question what mainstream society and the media tell everyone is true. And as a result, apathy has set in.

And through partial truths and an apathetic population, our nation has been led into a downward spiral becoming as much if not more divided than during the time our famously entombed president lived. And much of our strife comes from having so-called settled truths preached to us about which people cannot have varying opinions or conclusions. And if there is no tolerance for varying opinions or conclusions, why question? Just be apathetic to the truth, accept what mainstream tells everyone, and get along.

The problem with that solution is that our republic then dies a quiet death. Too many people in the US do not understand or care how important and how rare freedom of speech actually is. Without it, speech becomes regulated, and unapproved speech is illegal, punishable by imprisonment (and death in some countries). Currently, unapproved speech is immoral, which is a huge step toward illegal.

I would like to discuss some of these unquestionable and dogmatic beliefs that plague our nation. I want to research the facts, listen to the experts, and pose questions concerning what we are taught versus what we see in the facts. I hope this will drive additional color into your beliefs just as you now have more color on the riddle of Grant’s tomb.

I am going to try to take a devil’s advocate approach. I’ll try to stay strictly to researching the subjects and asking thought-provoking questions. My questions will counter what we are being told. I posed the questions this way so people could see the gap in their knowledge, not to show my personal beliefs. My personal beliefs are irrelevant. My goal is to drive critical thought, not have people believe what I believe. My research for this book taught me things I had had no clue about, and that had an impact on my beliefs. But now, my beliefs have much more substance to them.

Before moving into the topics of the book, I need to ask, Do you think you should question a subject if everyone tells you that it is unquestionable, that it is settled? What if people question your morality or intelligence if you apply critical thought to settled subjects? Would you question then? Should you continue questioning when the mainstream wants to nip your critical thinking in the bud? They say it is fact, and no one can question it. Anyone who questions it is a fool, or worse … evil. Doesn’t that mentality make you want to question their reasoning? Doesn’t that mentality draw into question the rationale behind the reason we cannot question what they have concluded was settled? Does their adamancy indicate a bias?

Unfortunately, in today’s society, the answer to these questions are overwhelmingly no. We have raised a generation that does not pay attention to the questions and apply critical thinking to come to conclusions. They do not even know they need to. We are told what to believe, so there is no need to exert effort to check facts, conclusions, premises, or assumptions. If they are a little bit curious, they click on their favorite social media site, which obligingly regurgitates the mainstream dogma thus reinforcing the narrative being fed them. Little do many people realize that settled science is usually flawed conclusions drawn from scientific data.

Evidence of this mentality surrounds us, but the result, the full impact of a society so dulled, has not yet been fully realized. I’m hoping this book will open some minds and start people questioning what they’re told.

I’m going to put forth some controversial topics and some facts that do not get circulated, and those facts will be true but controversial as well. My intention is not to stir up trouble, start a fight, or cause division; it is to have readers give these new facts some thought, juxtapose them with what they’ve been taught and believe, and perhaps draw more-informed conclusions even if they vary from mine. Also, you will have to admit, much of the information I am circulating in this book is not widely taught or discussed and probably not widely known. Why is that?

All my resources are open to the public—published books, public websites, and so on, information written by credentialed authors. But we are taught and given only a partial picture based on the conclusions of the person doing the teaching or the organization disseminating the information. Partial truths … Could these be lies? I have to ask that because why would someone or some organization give only partial truths? Why do they not want all the facts addressed?

My research pulled information from reputable sources, so the facts I cite will be facts even if my questions are one-sided. But your conclusions are your own because people can draw different conclusions from the same facts. This book may not change your mind on anything, but I hope it makes you realize you can’t just accept a teacher’s view on a subject even if that teacher thinks the subject is settled. You can’t take the media’s reporting on any issue and accept it all as absolute truth because it may be true but not the whole truth. Or what they are reporting may be mostly true with only a small amount of incorrect information. As I said earlier, the best lies are 99 percent true.

An already mentioned example of a purveyor of this do not question mentality is the news media. Regardless what station you watch, they all have chosen sides. A news station that has chosen sides does not report the news unbiasedly but has become an ideologue that reports its viewpoint, its agenda. The media report only the events that support their side and in a manner that best presents their view on an event. Or conversely, they report events that best attacks and tears down their opponents’ or enemy’s side and in a manner that presents their enemy’s side in the worst possible manner. In addition to this, they ignore all events regardless of how newsworthy that would go against the side they have chosen. When media does this, they offer propaganda, not news.

Imagine a society that accepts all information given it by anyone in authority, such as academia or the news media. Its people are no longer free; they are subject to that source of information, so that source has become their authority. They must wait for the authorities to tell them what they believe about an issue or event. Is what happened good or bad? Do I believe this, or do I believe that? We must wait to be told so we will know.

Imagine what people in a society like that would be able to accept, what they would be able to do or allow to be done because of their complacency. It is a fact that millennials overwhelmingly believe socialism is the best form of government despite the fact that socialism has overwhelmingly failed as a legitimate ruling government or has achieved mediocrity at best.

Only our great republican form of democracy with its capitalist economy has brought liberty and freedom infused with individual independence to the world. But true and complete freedom does have a cost; The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. This quote is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but it was also used by others during the early years of our republic. Regardless of its origins, it is true. Freedom is not free; it is paid for with the blood of patriots and by the continual awareness of the population being governed.

Are we staying vigilant? What is the archenemy of eternal vigilance? What can bring down arguably the best government the world has ever seen? The complacency and apathy I mentioned above. Complacency and apathy are a cancer to society, and they have taken hold in our society; I’m afraid our society has stage 4 complacency and apathy cancer. I mourn for our society and fear for the oncoming repercussions. I wrote this book in the hopes that people would read it, heed it, take it to heart, and start questioning even the basics.

II.   COVID-19 (CDC, 2021)

An example of Be quiet and believe what I tell you is what the world is going through with the COVID-19 pandemic. The media throughout the US have been using the CDC’s (Center for Disease Control) numbers on COVID deaths. The media published the CDC’s number stating that 164,280 people had died of COVID as of August 26, 2020, but in that same CDC report, the CDC did not say they died of COVID but rather that their deaths involved COVID.

Image1.JPGImage2.JPG

The CDC explicitly stated (CDC, 2021) that only 6 percent of the deaths (9,857 total deaths as of August 26, 2020) were due to COVID. The other 94 percent had 2.6 additional fatal issues. I want to draw your attention to the fact the CDC did not say other health complications but fatal issues.

In a May 8, 2021, update (CDC, 2021) that came out before I completed this book, the CDC was up to 561,594 COVID deaths. But that time, the number of deaths due exclusively to COVID had decreased to 5 percent. In addition, the other 95 percent averaged 4.0 additional fatal issues (which is also an increase since the previous August). So 28,080 deaths were exclusively COVID (moderate flu year), and 533,514 deaths had 4.0 additional fatal causes of death—five causes of death total.

It is important to point out that this is a different way of counting than is used with the flu or any other nationally tracked virus. First, only deaths caused exclusively by the flu were counted. But with COVID, the CDC said that people who died of stage 4 cancer and pneumonia but tested positive for COVID were in the CDC’s numbers for COVID deaths.

A second thing they do is continually count. The flu has a season and is counted for that season, and the total is limited to that annual season. Not the case with COVID. To get to 500,000-plus numbers, you need to go seventeen months so far (January 2020–May 2021). The CDC does break down the numbers into all sorts of segments including dates, but the numbers reported in the media are all the numbers since inception of the COVID outbreak. That’s interesting and worth questioning since we are fundamentally reshaping our republic because of this pandemic.

But does the media report these facts? The whole economy shut down, people’s lives are ruined, and our republic is fundamentally changed. Why? More people die of the flu most years. Overall, the CDC estimates are between 12,000 and 61,000 deaths annually from 2010 to 2019 that can be blamed exclusively on the flu (This Is How Many People Die From the Flu Each Year, According to the CDC, 2020).

Sixty-one thousand flu deaths (in twelve months) is more than twice the current 28,080 COVID deaths (in seventeen months). Just think if we counted flu deaths like we count COVID deaths. If we counted flu deaths the same as COVID reporting, we would be over 1,000,000 deaths with the flu during the same seventeen-month period, probably around 750,000 deaths with the flu annually. Every year a greater pandemic than COVID. Every year. What will be the next pandemic? Whatever virus is tracked using the same methods used to track COVID.

These facts are not reported by the media—and they are facts. My numbers come from the same report, from the same government agency that the media get their numbers from and report to the public. So people can label me anything (e.g., conspiracy theorist, wacko), but what I just gave is citable facts, not my opinion.

Here are some of the 4.0 other fatal issues listed in the CDC report but not reported as additional causes in the media’s COVID death totals (CDC, 2021).

• Alzheimer’s disease

• Cardiac arrest

• Cerebrovascular diseases

• Diabetes

• Heart Disease

• Influenza and pneumonia (The flu numbers are in this? I guess this is the reason flu deaths have been so low since COVID. Think about it; has anyone you know come down with the flu since COVID? Or has everyone come down with COVID?)

• Intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning, and other adverse events (So if people die in car wrecks but posthumously test positive for COVID, they are in the media’s death numbers.)

• Malignant neoplasms (cancerous tumors) (So people who have died of cancer but tested positive for COVID are in the media’s death count.)

But no one questions the numbers or why a person is posthumously tested; no critical thought goes into this extraordinarily critical event in our republic’s history.

Look at the CDC’s numbers of the 561,594 total deaths (including COVID) reported by the CDC and the media.

• 5% (28,080 deaths) of the victims died strictly because of COVID-19.

• 95% (533,514 deaths) of the victims did not die of COVID but were linked to COVID dying with an average of 4.0 additional fatal issues.

Look at the total number of everyone who died since the outbreak—the 5 percent who did die of COVID and the 95 percent who did not die of COVID but who were linked to COVID (561,594 deaths).

• 58.0% (325,611 deaths) of the victims were over age seventy-five.

• 80.1% (449,937 deaths) of the victims were over age sixty-five.

Breaking down the younger ages.

• 12.4% (69,495 deaths) of the victims were between fifty-five and sixty-four.

• 4.9% (27,482 deaths) of the victims were between forty-five and fifty-four.

• 2.6% (14,679 deaths) of the victims were forty-four or younger.

As for school-age children and young adults, I pulled all deaths for anyone between ages five and twenty-four.

• 0.02% (105 deaths) of the victims were school-age kids or young adults. More die of suicide in a year.

Here are some questions we should ask. For all numbers (exclusively COVID or not, nationwide since outbreak), what does it tell us

• when 92.5% (519,432 deaths) of total victims were over age fifty-five?

• when 2.6% (fewer than 15K deaths) were attributed to people forty-four or younger?

• when 0.02% (a little more than a hundred) of the victims were of school age?

• when 95% of the victims were not counted as victims in totals of other viruses such as the flu?

Can you understand how some people can look at these numbers and believe they show COVID-19 has been abusively overblown and schools never should have been closed and our nation should never have given up our civil liberties for the sake of public safety? I do not believe anyone can deny that it conclusively shows the governor of New York never should have put COVID patients back into nursing homes. Infected patients into the same environment as the most vulnerable!

Have you considered if this information could be what drives the hypocrisy of our elite class? Remember in the midst of the hysteria of COVID, California’s governor Gavin Newsom attended a dinner party at the French Laundry, a restaurant that costs more than my truck to eat at. It was indoors, and no one wore masks. The horror! And he was just one of many to break the COVID restrictions they had put in place. The Philadelphia mayor went across state lines to attend a dinner function. Nancy Pelosi went to her hair stylists after hair stylists were closed down because they were so dangerous to spreading COVID.

Those are just a few of the well-known highlights. So many more of these hypocritical activities were indulged in by our ruling class. Why? If COVID really is this horrifyingly deadly virus, shouldn’t our elite class be just as concerned? Regardless of social status, if people really felt that eating dinner in public without a mask could kill them, wouldn’t that drive their behavior and not just their political speech and political actions?

I’m throwing this out there as a possibility. Just maybe, COVID-19 isn’t as dangerous for 92.5 percent of the population as the media and politicians make it out to be. But there is more. Masks were mandated for a long period (and still are in some areas). Cloth and paper masks do not stop the spread of viruses mainly because virus cells are too small and can easily pass through them. However, the vast majority of people wear these cloth or paper masks that do not stop the spread of viruses. This means we are being told to do something that doesn’t help.

But since COVID isn’t as dangerous as the media hypes it, wearing an ineffective mask doesn’t hurt anyone either, and the media ensures everyone feels good and moral about it. So our population is willing to sacrifice fundamental civil liberties so people can feel good about themselves for doing something that doesn’t help during a pandemic that doesn’t exist any more than our annual flu outbreaks exist as annual national health pandemics.

I’m sorry if you had a loved one die of COVID, but an untimely death of a loved one due to COVID is no worse than an untimely death of a loved one to the flu or an untimely death of a loved one in a car accident. But we do not fundamentally change our republic for those. These additional facts extrapolated from the same CDC from which the mainstream media reports may not change your mind about the severity of the pandemic, but don’t you think the news should report the whole truth and not just the biggest numbers?

We are supposed to be quiet and embrace what is told us. Unfortunately, this tactic works as many people who read these additional facts from the CDC will still believe COVID is worse than the plague just because we have been told it is for over a year.

Since people do silence themselves and embrace it, they become emotionally attached to their belief in it without facts to support their beliefs. This makes people extremely hostile to others who try to put out facts that push the boundaries of what they have embraced even if the facts are from the same government agency and only more-detailed facts not conflicting with what has been embraced, only adding color. Why is this? Because people can’t respond with intelligence and their own facts. They can’t debate the issue. They can respond only with the emotion they have for their beliefs and with talking points they remember from their favorite media source.

And the media is smart; it utilizes psychology to enhance the emotional attachment. The media uses human nature—the fact that every death of (or with) COVID is a tragedy, and so many people have been touched by COVID. Therefore, to question the statistics is being uncompassionate and uncaring or worse, mean spirited and evil.

The media also drives the hostility to questions by personalizing the numbers. They put as many personal stories of COVID deaths (due to or involving COVID but not clarifying) as possible to add emotion to their numbers. Everyone is impacted. Everyone knows someone who has COVID or knows someone who died of COVID, and anyone who downplays this is deplorable and heartless. Again, I’m not downplaying individual deaths; I’m questioning if we need to fundamentally change our republic to combat this.

The media also aggrandizes first responders for their role in helping COVID patients. But COVID did not make every first responder out there a hero. First responders have always been heroes. They run into the fire to help us escape the fire. They help get us to the hospital and to the critical care providers we need when we are in an accident. They come running when we call because of a shootout close by us or a break-in at home. COVID has nothing to do with that. But by aggrandizing first responders because of COVID, anyone who downplays COVID is mocking first responders. Everyone has emotional buy-in to fighting COVID, but people never stop to wonder if COVID is worth the extreme cost of the fight. Why didn’t we change our republic for people who died of the flu?

Who’s to say what the correct course is? I’m not promoting one avenue over another. I’m just saying that we as a society should question the information given us and demand the whole truth, and we should hold people accountable when they exaggerate and personify numbers to promote their agendas or boost their ratings especially if it affects our liberties as a nation.

III.   Biological Differences in the Sexes and Impacts

Here is an extraordinarily controversial subject—women on the front lines in combat.

I raised my daughter to believe she could be the next president or the doctor who cures cancer. She could do anything she wanted to do … except be a biological man. I raised my son to believe he could be the next president or the doctor who cures cancer, anything he wanted to do … except be a biological woman.

Even though I didn’t say I’m against others who say differently, I know what I wrote is controversial because of the days we live in. But regardless of your beliefs, biology comes from birth, and that is a fact whether you believe it or not. This is controversial only because we are told it is controversial.

I know everyone is for women on the front lines and believe women can do anything a man can do, but I disagree. If that is true, why isn’t golf integrated? Why does the WPGA still exist? After all, we’re talking golf, not hand-to-hand combat to the death as in women on the front lines. What about tennis? Why do we still have women’s tennis? Shouldn’t it be just tennis? After all, we aren’t asking the woman to throw a grenade at the guy, just hit a ball back to him.

The government tells us it does not lower standards for women in the military as was the case with the first female paratrooper a few years back. I was in the Marine Corps for six years, so I have some experience with this, but let me ask you some basic logical questions.

Can a woman carry as much as a man, as far as a man, and as quickly as a man can? If you say yes, she should be able to hit a golf ball as far as a man or as accurate as a man, so we should abolish the WPGA.

Does a man have an unfair advantage in tennis against a woman but that same woman can go up against a man and fight him to the death in combat? We haven’t even started talking about the MMA (mixed martial arts) or boxing.

Is it inappropriate to suggest female boxers should integrate with male boxers or have women fight men in the Octagon (UFC—Ultimate Fighting Championship MMA) competition? Can we say that is inappropriate while we as a nation say it is right and fair to have a woman on the front lines ready to fight a man with a knife to the death?

Realistically, if we expect her to kill a man with a knife in hand-to-hand combat, I don’t understand why she couldn’t go up against men her own size in the MMA. Remember, in combat, you are not paired with a similar-sized opponent. It’s fight or die no matter how big the opponent is. In the MMA, she would be paired against a similarly sized man. I’m not saying sports should be integrated; I’m just calling out the duplicity.

So by now I’m sure the word misogynist has come to mind. But let’s discuss the basics on the difference between men and women and see if I’m being misogynist or the facts lend credence to what I have written.

One basic difference between men and women involves their bones and skeletons. In general, male skeletons are larger and heavier than female skeletons are. In the male skeleton, bones are larger, thicker, and stronger as compared to the female skeleton. Conversely, in the female skeleton, bones are smaller, thinner and weaker as compared to the male skeleton (Favors, 2017).

According to Healthy Living, a general difference between male and female skeletons can be observed in the limbs. The humerus, ulna, and radius, which are the major bones in the arm, are thicker and longer in men. The phalanges—the bones that make up the fingers—are also bigger, which is why most men have bigger hands than women. The same goes for the lower limbs, which are supported by the femur, tibia, and fibula bones—all typically longer and thicker in men (Favors, 2017).

The differences in male and female skeletons are due in part to the hormones that affect bone development. Testosterone is the primary influence that shapes men’s bones while estrogen has a greater effect on women’s bone development. From infancy, males and females have relatively malleable bone cartilage that grows and becomes firm and solid when they reach a certain age. The high levels of estrogen that happen during female puberty cause an earlier closure of these particular cartilages. At around age eighteen, women’s bones are already set while male bone development ends at around age twenty-one allowing men more time to gain bone mass (Favors, 2017).

Another difference is the amount of calcium; male skeletons contain more of it than female skeletons do. The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) performed a study on military cadets and found stress fractures were far more common in female military cadets (3.4–21%) than in their male counterparts (0.9–5.2%). They found that gender differences in skeletal size and BMD (bone mineral density) persist at most skeletal sites even after matching for body size. Males were reported to have 12 to 13 percent greater hip BMD than females. So biology tells us a man’s bones are most typically larger and denser than a woman’s even if the two are the same size (Nieves 2009).

In a recent size-adjusted analysis, the femoral neck difference between males and females was 3 percent after adjusting for height and weight. Similarly, in ASBMR’s size-matched population, total hip BMD was 6 percent higher and femoral neck BMD was 5 percent higher in males than in females. Bone volume differences could partially explain the greater hip BMD in males than females. However, after matching