Let’s look at some statistical truths (I wish I had links for this; if you look at the wikipedia page for in-group out-group bias, it has a lot of good links, though).

The variations among members of an in-group will always be greater than the differences between the two groups as a whole.  In other words, no matter how you group people (black vs white, male vs female), statistically speaking, you will be able to find two individuals within any group that are significantly more different to each other than the difference in characteristics of the two groups when looked at all together.  There’s also this awesome thing about statistics, which is that… they don’t tell us anything about an individual.  Even if 97% of women are extremely emotionally complicated that doesn’t tell you anything about the one sitting in front of you (obviously this is a made-up statistic).  The last thing of note is that there was an article written by a woman comparing *all* of the studies that were done of the supposed differences between men and women, all of them, including physical, emotional, and personality/social (the kind of study that compares huge numbers of other studies is called a meta-analysis).  It is important to note that in psychology, there is what is called a “differences bias” which means that if you run a study (about the difference between nurturing styles of men and women, for example) and you don’t find any difference between the two of them, that’s a lot less interesting and a lot less publishable than a study that *does* find a difference.  So, this researcher (name of Janet Hyde, by the way; the study is from the early 80s and you could probably find it on google scholar, but I can’t link the pdf file I have of it) is doing an analysis of all the studies that actually found differences and were published.  She looked at all of them, and found that most of them had such small differences that they weren’t even statistically significant (meaning that the differences found were more likely attributable to chance in the small population samples used, rather than an actual difference between the way the two genders work.  The main exception?  Upper body strength.  :D
Another idea behind psychology is that everything is a combination of genes and environment.  Have you ever heard of epigenetics? Some pretty fascinating stuff.  Essentially, the possibilities even for the limited number of genes we are given are endless–many genetic characteristics are “turned on” by social environment.
All of this to say that blanket statements such as the one you made are pretty impossible to make when backed by data.  I looked at the “study” from the Panda xanga username and frankly, it wasn’t a strong study nor was it generalizable.  Obviously there are gender differences, but they’re largely creditable to social environment and disappear when compared statistically.