Oh man, yes, there are lots of people claiming it's all 100% nurture. There even was a media shitstorm in France around the "patriarchy of steak" in 2017. Basically, an anthropologist claimed in her PhD thesis that women are smaller and weaker than men because of millennia of patriarchal oppression. She received support from many famous social scientists, and a long documentary on Arte (the French-German TV channel), countless newspaper articles, etc.

See (in French, sorry): http://www.slate.fr/story/155300/patriarcat-steak-existe-pas

This ideology is absolutely dominant nowadays in social "science" around the world.

How much is lots? You gave one isolated example. That's anecdote. We are back to my original questions: do you have any data to back up your claim that one side is claiming it's 100% nurture? Or is it anecdotal?

> countless newspapers

You can count newspapers. How many was it? How many of them are from "one side"? How wide is their readership? That's data. You are still in the world of anecdote.

The article I posted is a comment on the media ruffle on this subject, with links to articles from various media. It was mentioned in national dailies (Liberation, Le Monde, etc), information websites (Slate.fr, HuffPost.fr, etc), weekly papers (l'Obs, etc), science magazines (Science & Vie, etc), and national television (with a full, prime-time 1 hour documentary on Arte, plus TV news). You hardly get more coverage than that.

That's still anecdote. You haven't even established which "side" is promoting this 100% nurture story. The vast majority of the progressives / socially liberal people I personally know think that both nature and nurture are factors. So it must be the conservatives who believe that nurture is 100% and are promoting this idea? We both know that's not the case. So is there really a "side" promoting a 100% nurture theory? Or just a few people pushing an extreme theory that is then sensationalized by the media?

That's why you need data and numbers to prove your point instead of one anecdotal data point. One example is close to useless, and a widespread news story is not evidence of what people believe.

> an anthropologist claimed in her PhD thesis that women are smaller and weaker than men because of millennia of patriarchal oppression.

That would be a claim of gene-culture coevolution. Not really "100% nurture" in the generally-understood sense.

I never got that from that statement at all. Just acknowledgement that they're acting according to expectation. It makes no inference that the expectation is there because you can't change it, merely that you haven't.

The nature argument doesn't say you can't change it. Just that the source of your inclination is built in genetically and from birth rather than being a result of nurture. Are boys more aggressive due to nature? Considering that we know what testosterone does to behavior and the stereotype exists across most cultures and all of history, I don't think "boys will be boys" means they were nurtured to be that way, at least not to most people.