Grammar

Yes, the meaning of both sentences is the same. The first example is what is sometimes called a litotes, that is a sentence construction where a thought is expressed through negatives, the denial of an opposite possibility.

In common usage, however, the sentences have a subtly different connotation. To use the first example, it implies a previous statement which could be misinterpreted as having implied that the "men are not handsome." The sentence would then be intended to clarify this and emphasize that this is not what was meant by the previous statement. The second example is simply a straightforward affirmation of the handsomeness of the men in question (although this, too, implies a previous sentence because "that is to say" seems to refer to such a previous statement.)

My immediate reaction is "no"; though I'm sure Andy's analysis is on the ball. Probably I'm replicating to some extent, but


Implication: Still they might all be ugly; or we can't judge because their heads are all turned away

?????????

I do hope you read the entire response, JTT. The next few sentences explain what I mean by 'subtly different connotation.' Why the ????????

This positioning of 'below' has always sounded strange to me.

Do the two sentences below have the same meaning?

It doesn't sound at all strange with its opposite.

Do the above two sentences have the same meaning?

I wonder what other native speakers think.

For just this once, I agree with you. (Although, technically, I'm not a 'native speaker' of English. )

Basically it's all down to context, 'That is to say that the men are handsome,' could stand on its own. It merely states that the men are handsome, but, if it's on its own it would sound better with a few less words, 'The men are handsome.'

Having said that both sentences really depend on those that precede them. 'That is to say that the men are handsome,' suggests something positive has been said about the men, and the sentence reinforces that positive statement. As in the example below.

The men are lean, suntanned and muscular. That is to say that the men are handsome.

However, with the sentence, 'That is not to say that the men are not handsome,' the implication is that something negative has been said about the men, but regardless of this they're still good looking. As in the example below.

The men are rude, loud and obnoxious. That is not to say that the men are not handsome.

Quote:
Do the below two sentences have the same meaning?

Me too, sounds overbelown

(Forgive)

Yes definitely preferred colloquial


[That is,]
Yea my reaction also, isn't it strange

I'm one (though my input doesn't have much weight hereabout)