Your premise is about gender binaries related to inherent aptitudes. That's been thoroughly eviscerated in a wide variety of ways. If there are substantial "exceptions" - as noted that there are, even in the links you provided - it demonstrates a priori that no such binary exists. Your premise is anachronistic, silly, and out of touch with reality.

These links don't "debunk" anything. They both clearly indicate that hunting by women is widespread in the majority of forager societies, and simply call into question some of the conclusions about that made in the study. For the purposes of our discussion and your absurd premise about the nature of gender roles, your links support my premise quite handily.

In the US, women were second class citizens by law up until about 50 years ago. There were about 300 laws on the books that applied to women and not to men well into the 1970s. Women couldn't get credit cards or home loans in their own name. They could be fired for becoming pregnant. My mother still remembers going to buy carpet and being told she needed to bring her husband in to approve it. It was legal in most states to beat your wife up until 1920, and even after if became illegal, wasn't substantially enforced until the women's movement of the 1970s.

“Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine in the English common law in which a married woman's legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband, so that she had no independent legal existence of her own. Upon marriage, coverture provided that a woman became a feme covert, whose legal rights and obligations were mostly subsumed by those of her husband. An unmarried woman, or feme sole, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. Coverture was well established in the common law for several centuries and was inherited by many other common law jurisdictions, including the United States.”

Good lord, man. Just how ignorant of history are you?

I've had enough Dunning-Kruger for the time being, thanks. 👋