Please cite your study, because there is a century of scientific studies that cites the opposite.
Why do male and female bodybuilders inject testosterone rather than estrogen into their bodies? Why do they use estrogen blockers when doing a steroid cycle? Because testosterone is the hormone that promotes protein synthesis, whereas estrogen increases subcutaneous bodyfat and water retention.
Estrogen has been shown to act as an anti-inflammatory during exercise, however this is counter-intuitive in the realm for creating muscle. Muscles need to be torn and inflamed in order to hypertrophy.
Your BF may be "strong AF", and pound for pound your lifts may equal his -- this can be attributed to physics, specifically Galileo's Square-cube law. Volume and thus mass increases faster than cross section area. That's why the strength of a larger, heavier creatures is proportionally worse than the lighter, smaller creatures. This is also why a grasshopper can jump many times it's own height and why some beetles can support 1000% of their own weight.
If you don't want a baby, use a condom and only have sex with partners you trust.
This seems very closed-minded. This isn't about trusting partners, it's about making the options available be equal and fair. You're correct that people do not have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body once a child is conceived. However a woman also does not have the right to bring a child into the world against sperm donors wishes.
No one is trying to lobby to tell you what to do with your body
Read number 5 of this link
At the risk of having faecal matter posted through my letterbox, one of the other big barriers to the male pill has been feminism. Granted, we're talking big, sweeping generalisations here, but history speaks for itself. See, while the latest scientific breakthroughs may be new, the general concept of a male pill is not. In the 1970s, Brazilian endocrinologist Dr Elsimar Coutinho developed one of the first ever male pill prototypes. Made from all-natural cottonseed, it didn’t go down too well with pharmaceutical companies for obvious reasons (hardly a money-spinner if the local health shop can produce a no-frills version for half the price), but it also suffered social resistance. When launched at the 1974 World Health Conference in Budapest, religious groups voiced concern and feminists staged a boycott, storming Coutinho’s presentation and demanding that only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood. Think attitudes have changed? Don't be so sure. Not long ago feminist site Jezebel dubbed the idea "whore pills for men", while Angela Phillips wrote in The Guardian that "the bigger issue behind the development of a contraceptive pill for men is that women risk losing control of conception". She added: "While we are transfixed by the idea that men might at last be able to share the loss of libido, weight gain, and general grumpiness which so often accompany pill-taking for women, we are in danger of losing track of the bigger issue: control. The pill gives women control of the fertility tap. She decides when to turn it off but just as important she decides (after discussion we hope) when to turn it back on." Which, funnily enough, is precisely why men need their own version. Wouldn't it be better if pregnancies were planned by both parties, all the time, rather than "control" resting solely with women? That really shouldn't be such a bitter pill to swallow.
A male contraceptive was being developed, and then boycotted against.