Well, that's assuming that genes are all maximally expressed from the moment somebody is born, and that nothing can lie dormant, so if we don't see the behavior right away it must have been "added later" by culture.

I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.

> I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.

I agree, but the reality is we don't know. Also there's evidence that cultural norms do substantially shape our opportunities (e.g. Denmark vs Saudi Arabia) and we should be mindful of this always. This cuts both ways too — men in Scandinavia are much more likely to be involved in child rearing through choice, and this is something men in other cultures miss out on.

Oh yes, I never meant to imply that nature vs nurture has some important moral implications. Ultimately it doesn't matter if something is the result of nature or nurture, we wouldn't let people murder if there was a "increased murder likelihood gene" because our genes does not decide what is correct.

The real fallacy has always been people who think that if something can be proven to be nurture rather than nature, that means it's "naturally right" and should thus be encouraged, and deviancy from that norm "corrected".

It's totally okay for boys to play with dolls even if it turns out nature makes boys favor toy cars over dolls on average.