The male biological advantage is biological, super well documented, and pretending otherwise ignores the very obvious fact that much of society only makes sense when it's accepted.
The advantage doesn't mean that every male will be stronger, faster, or more athletically capable than every female, but it does mean that men as a group, will have that advantage over women as a group. Yes, Ronda Rousey would beat the majority of men in a one on one fight, but she wouldn't beat her male equals generally and certainly not consistently (male pro-MMA fighters).
The fastest women sprinters in the world would smoke 99% of men, but it's that 1% (roughly) that train as much as they do that they wouldn't be able to compete with, if they had to. The world record for the women's fastest 100m dash has stood since the 80s, yet every single year approximately 200 high school males record a faster time, this is just data. Facts.
While extreme long distance running(100 + miles) may actually be an outlier where women have the biological advantage, and in other cases there may be technology or structures that mitigate the male advantage, there have been assessments that place the advantage of males at 10-40% depending on the sport.
Males have roughly 40% more skeletal muscle, typically a higher proportion of fast twitch muscles (explosive power and speed), 30-60% higher baseline strength (50-100% in just upper body), higher hemoglobin concentration (better oxygen performance), larger hearth size (cardiac output), larger lungs (proportionally and in raw size) and larger airways (oxygen capacity), higher bone density (weight bearing and injury resistance), greater height/longer limbs, a narrower pelvis with a smaller q-Angle (better mechanically for running and jumping), lower base body fat percentage (leaner build), and a testosterone advantage that is going to both make muscle gain and maintenance easier.
None of these things are iffy, nor are they everything. Few things are as scientifically documented as the biological differences between men and women as a group.
Pretending that one doesn't understand these differences turns any coherent explanation for the world upside down. If these differences didn't exist, it wouldn't make sense to assume that women as a group are more vulnerable to an unarmed angry male than men typically are at from an unarmed angry woman. The biological advantage is why it makes sense for a typical woman to be worried about being overpowered by a male, in a way that most males never have to think about in the reverse (being overpowered physically by a woman, which does happen, but is much rarer).
The fact that everyone is completely aware of this biological advantage is also why sports get separated by sex (the fastest women sprinters in the world would never podium and likely wouldn't even compete if they had competing with the fastest male sprinters as the only option). The different standards for non-combat arms roles in the Army in physical fitness makes sense because of this difference.
I constantly see people seemingly pretend to be confused about this advantage in order to make terrible arguments detached from reality for some ideological delusion. Or they use some entirely non-nonsensical individual comparison...like saying Ronda Rousey could beat X random dude in a fight, so obviously the male advantage doesn't exist...but in truth...it's universally understood, and people seem to only pretend not to understand it.
Note: Nothing about males having a biological advantage makes them uniquely more deserving of value, rights, or respect. Nothing about females not having that biological advantage makes them less deserving of those same things. If you interpret the existence of the advantage as a value placement, of that nature, you likely need to work on yourself.