[FredZarguna]

It's not an actuarial assumption, it's a result. When you correct actuarially for more dangerous occupations, more job related stress (until very recently) and, in the 20th century, much more tobacco use by men, the differences disappear almost entirely.

In fact women are subjected to a much more serious and systemically more widespread cancer danger than men because their reproductive systems are so much more complex.

Women are not "biologically" stronger than men. They are behaviorally more risk averse.

[Enchante]

"They are behaviorally more risk averse"

YES. Also, if this kind of study merely compares death rates and survival, it does not account for different behaviors in the face of crisis, both intended and unintended. For instance, in a famine, epidemic, or siege will some % of men be more self-sacrificing or less so than women? Will women get more of the available calories and protections, per capita? There is the well known "women and children first" principle for life boats, etc. Not to say all men at all times and places have behaved well, far from it, but in survival situations there may be both conscious and unconscious impulses supporting survival of females....??

Of course, one could put all the behavioral aspects down to biology, on some views, but still, it is relevant to ask how the choices and actions of individuals in crisis situations may (or may not) differ.