It is bollocks insasmuch as it's not up to men to control women and the idea of a physical undertone to all male conversations is tosh. As with much of his stuff there is a grain of truth in there somewhere. I think that there are constraints of expression put on men that are sometimes not applied to women, which can (in extreme cases) lead to strange situations. To give a trivial example I heard of a heated discussion (between a man and a woman) in a workplace about a professional decision that had to be made. The endpoint of the argument was the woman crying. The result was that the observers to the discussion sided with her, not just in terms of sympathy, but in terms of the underlying decision. The man was left asking, "what would you think of me if I did that?"
Although, as with most of these things these apparent transgressions result from women not being included in these sorts of situations in the first place, so the "rules" are inconsistently applied. The rules (explicit or implicit) of reasonable discourse were probably developed to improve on men just sorting out who was "right" by just fighting about it. So they've not been developed with the view that they'd be applied to women.