First off, thank you for demonstrating my point. You're totally comfortable with jumping to discrimination as being the first and only (or at least primary) explanation when looking at disparities affecting some groups, but require every other possibility be exhausted before considering it for men.

I think you might just be jumping to conclusions that fit your biases.

So, biological factors that explain why men are more likely to be convicted when prosecuted for a crime, tend to get harsher sentences when convicted for a given crime, tend to be given higher bail for similar charges etc, etc, etc? Let alone being 95% of those killed by police and a large majority of those convicted of violent crimes.

No, I'm saying that they aren't really comparable. There are too many variables that can't be accounted for to draw any meaningful conclusions.

It's interesting that you claim there is no intrinsic difference between black and white males, when there are measurable genetic differences (not just between black and white folks, but between black and white folks with ancestry from different regions and those differences are larger than the genetic differences between males and females

Lol, no. The physiology that is most associated with things like attitude and especially violent behavior is based on hormone production. There aren't going to be phenotypical expressions that modulate hormone production in a significant way.

Also the genetic variability between ethnic groups are immeasurably small, and inconsistent. There is often more genetic variability within a single ethnic group than there is between two completely different ethnicities. Ethnicity is largely a social construct, with things like skin color just being an expression of phenotypical mutations.

Except those differences apparently do not justify any differences in treatment and any gap between population distribution and distribution of negative criminal justice outcomes is necessarily discriminatory, while the SRY gene does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of criminal tendencies and criminal culpability.

My dude, saying that something doesn't make a decent comparative study is not making any kind of claim.

In a particular way that causes them to be graded better than boys, but for much of that difference to go away in standardized testing where the student's identity is not part of the equation at all?

Yes? Outside of standardized testing what are children being graded on....? Things like cooperation, class participation, communication, and reading and writing. Things girls typically advance in at a younger age.

The problem with your claim is that discrimination requires someone to be the discriminator. What group is responsible for this discrimination in the justice system? A system that's historically been comprised of almost entirely males?

Yes, the justice system in America is messed up, but who exactly is responsible for that if not men? Even if we pretend you are correct, that men have been sent to prison specifically because of their masculinity..... Okay, now what?

So we hunt down those responsible for the discrimination? The judges....male, the cops....male, the lawyers.....male, what about the lawmakers?.....oh yeah mostly men. Okay, so men are discriminating against other men? Maybe......that suggest that masculinity in and of itself wasn't actually the target in the first place?

It's almost as if the drug war establishing a prison industrial system had some unforeseen consequences...... Consequences you may be misinterpreting in a way that fulfills your own preconceptions.