In fact, up until about the 1800s it was widely believed that women were much more carnal than men - so yes, a lot of current beliefs around that are just cultural narratives.

You're tilting at windmills Don Quixote. I haven't once said that nature doesn't exist or that it can't exist with nurture. In fact, I've repeatedly said the exact opposite. You've gone off on a tangent because you've seen that this complimentarian notion, which you probably learned in church, doesn't actually exist in the real world and is in fact one of the things that is 100% socially devised in order to uphold patriarchy and marginalize women.

I've already told you that most indigenous cultures have many genders and that they don't pay much attention to gender roles, even though they exist.

I've told you that I'm attracted to (and most women are attracted to) all sorts of men, not just ones who have traits that are different than mine, and that in fact, my husband is a whole lot like me in every way except for his body. Also, I have a blend of Yin and Yang traits - just as we all do to a greater or lesser extent.

I've demonstrated how it wouldn't make good evolutionary sense for small bands of hunter-gatherers living off the land in harsh conditions to be overly siloed into particular traits that had to be complimented by someone else who might not be there for some reason. That's a recipe for extinction because it's not very adaptable.

I've given example after example of how biological sex has little correlation to interests, abilities, etc., beginning in prehistory and that is really primarily gender rules and norms that assign these things in the context of individual cultures - many of which are different in other cultures.

The old assumption that sexual selection has created near-universal sex roles—males mostly like this, females mostly like that—has been replaced with growing recognition of the diversity of courtship and parental roles both across and within species. This across-species variability means that there is no universal template for how genetic and hormonal components of sex play out to affect brain and behavior—a point we’ll come back to in Chapter 4. And the within-species species variability in “sex roles”—think bush crickets, dung beetles, hedge sparrows, and most obviously ourselves—points to a no less important conclusion (that we’ll return to later in the book). Sexual selection hasn’t locked such roles into sex-linked genes and hormones, but allows for individuals to be profoundly influenced by their social, material, physical, (and in our own case) economic, cultural, and political circumstances.

Fine, Cordelia. Testosterone Rex: Myths of Sex, Science, and Society (p. 62). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

This has been an interesting chat, but I don't feel like I can keep saying the same things over and over again, so perhaps it's time to move on.