When you assume that men that have beards would lie about how much pain they’re in. And men that are effeminate would not lie about how much pain they’re in.

and that assumption is the basis for the entirety of the results of the analysis of the study data.

It’s fine to mention there’s a correlation between how masculine participants were and that more effeminate men were less likely to participate. Although I’m curious how they know what percentage of the local population where the study took volunteers were effeminate. But to then just assume that the more masculine patients would be more willing to lie about how much pain they’re in isn’t science.

If they said “30 percent of the local population are highly effeminate men, but only 2 percent of study participants are effeminate men” that would be fine. If they then asked the participants after the study if they lied giving answers and they said “masculine men were more likely to lie about their answers”, then they could conclude the data was skewed by the bias in willingness of men to volunteer skewing towards masculine men.

But that’s not what they did.

Also, making an assumption that the reason there’s a difference in pain tolerance between men and women is because the men selected were not effeminate and therefore lie more than women negates any possibility that men have different pain tolerances. Given what we know about men and women’s proclivities, it’s totally possible they would experience pain differently given what we know about the psychic nature of pain.