the person who told you that men are objectively more intelligent uses that as objective proof that men are more intelligent as a whole and women are objectively all not intelligent.

the issue with this person's conclusion (not taking into account the mysogynistic undertones) is that everyone is different, sure some men might be more intelligent than some women. chadifer and burtha are parts to a very large and diverse group of people, chadifer has a higher IQ than burtha but that doesn't mean all men are smarter than women and burtha has a lower IQ than chadifer, but that doesn't mean that women are stupid.

this is an issue I see sometimes when someone is trying to prove a point or in some studies, having literal 50/50 odds aren't going to give you useful insight.

if you were trying to prove chadifer was more intelligent than burtha then you would've succeeded but using these two random people to prove such a large, vauge thing as "one gender is smarter than the other!!!" is ridiculous because these two random people don't represent their group.

let's use another example, let's say you pull 2 names out of a hat, and you work in a prison. both the people you pull just so happen to be gay so you use this as evidence that gay people are all criminals since both the people you pulled just so happened to be gay, you aren't taking into account other factors like the prison is small and mostly filled with gen z or something like in this hypothetical scenerio something like kissing in public as a queer couple is illegal so a lot of people got thrown in prison for that or maybe it was completely random and a coincidence.

like, does anyone see what i'm getting at? trying to generalize a large group of people based on a small group of said people isn't effective and is stupid.
now, some groups are very bad (obviously) but doing things like generalizing a gender, country, ect. isn't a good idea at getting a good picture of what's going on.