As is often the case, it's not simply either/or.

> We cannot hope to understand sex and gender until we clarify our attitude toward nature. Sex is a subset to nature. Sex is the natural in man.

She's not saying that biology is the sole factor that determines how we behave. She's saying that we need to understand it and integrate it into our understanding of cultural, psychological, sociological artifacts. Or more importantly, we can't understand them without taking into account biology. I don't see anything wrong here.

Are we talking about outliers or are we talking about the vast global and historical populations. These kinds of examples usually point to some small tribe in Africa, or some matrilineal or matriarchal property in some civilization (e.g. Spartan inheritance laws) as a counter-example, but miss that you still need to explain why the vast majority of civilizations and societies independently ascribed the same properties to men and women.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/slowes/files/lowes_competi...

Never heard this before. Could you list some examples?

https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/gend...

See the comment by obviuosly for some caveats.

We use a controlled experiment to explore whether there are gender differences in selecting into competitive environments across two distinct societies: the Maasaiin Tanzania and the Khasi in India. One unique aspect of these societies is that the Maasai represent a textbook example of a patriarchal society, whereas the Khasi are matrilineal. Similar to the extant evidence drawn from experiments executed in Western cultures, Maasai men opt to compete at roughly twice the rate as Maasai women. Interestingly, this result is reversed among the Khasi, where women choose the competitive environment more often than Khasi men, and even choose to compete weakly more often than Maasai men.

[1] https://rady.ucsd.edu/faculty/directory/gneezy/pub/docs/gend...