So you meant to say, "It wouldn't be, but it's not a phenomena that 1. exist..."

If that was the case then you wouldn't need to continue afterwards. But I'll just take your word for it.

I'm reading your second source, I disregarded the first one because its the site is not a .org, .gov, or .net, I assume any .com not to be credible.

But here are some statements from the second source:

In larger groups, the evidence even more clearly suggests that men tend to speak more than women.

Extraordinarily, we do not know how listeners actually assess how much is spoken. Common sense tells us that someone who drawls a sentence slowly is not considered to have said more than another person who gabbles the same sentence twice in less time than the first person took to say it once.

lthough speech scientists have not directly investigated how listeners
assess amount of talk, there is a large literature on how listeners judge rate of speech. This literature shows that listeners are in fact quite poor at estimating rate.

We also separately estimated the degree to which the textual content of our conversations was judged to be typical of female or of male speech. If the folk belief rests crucially on perception of speech in terms of social roles, then we should find that the degree to which a given contribution is overesti-mated should be related to how "female" the text of the contribution is judged to be.

I've just finished reading it, first of all, this research paper was written in 1990, its pretty outdated considering how much has changed since then, second, its not a study about the "phenomenon" of men talking over women, its just a study on the rate of speech between men and women, and it so happens that men talk more than women. This paper doesn't prove you're point, it only supports the idea that men talk over women, and even that's subjective because the paper says that "we do not know how listeners actually assess how much is spoken."