> reject the restrictive assignment of people based on primary sexed attributes.
That's not what happens or how it works. People largely self-segregate by choice.
> it's to enforce cultural stereotypes and maintain, in the case of our society, usually patriarchal hierarchies.
Actual evidence for this?
There is a much higher degree of correlation between personality types and occupation/pay - so for example, one actionable change might be to challenge young girls to develop assertiveness and other useful personality traits. It seems like teaching kids that "if you don't achieve your dreams it's because the cultural majority and/or patriarchy held you down" is not going to translate to any useful skill in approaching the world, and only serves as an easy excuse for them to throw out rather than actually address personal shortcomings.
Can you demonstrate this deductively, logically, or with evidence?
I googled your proposition and came up with no obvious study you must be thinking about. Can you link it, please?
My point is also to reject the restrictive assignment of people based on primary sexed attributes. Sorry, you've got a vagina, you can't drive a racecar good. Seems insane to me. Typically when people talk about "certain professional aspirations attract certain people," it's not out of a desire to help people find roles in society that align with their gender identities, it's to enforce cultural stereotypes and maintain, in the case of our society, usually patriarchal hierarchies. Not always, sometimes it's matriarchal ones (such as regarding custody of children). This is to me distasteful and I strongly push for people to justify their positions when they could lead to this enforcement, even if it isn't their intention.