Boys are boys and girls are girls most girls are into things considered feminine though years of evolution and boys masculine through evolution and masculinity was determined by traits that attracted women to mates like being durable enough to hunt, work in mines to provide for family etc. while men wanted nice fertile women with nice breasts and hips for better baby making and who could take care of the child while said man was out hunting.
Obviously men and women are interested in some things masculine and some things feminine but there is a general ruleset that affects the average male and female so you can't ignore it and shouldn't be discouraged but if you're genuinely deviant from the subject please go ahead nobody really will care unless you're being a cunt.
This is terrible science, and in particular a stunningly bad and disappointingly popular misconception of human evolutionary psychology and genetics, as well as how biology works. Actually, it also just completely disregards the history of the world and many cultures as well, so chalk it up to terrible anthropology too. It's most of all bad biology (I'm not sure you understand how breastfeeding works, for starters, so it's embarrassing you can make that post) and not even a complete explanation for many less complex organisms and their mating rituals. Why then would you find something so simplistic adequate to explain a social construct like human gender?
It's a long argument, and it's part of what interests me about what I study (neuroscience and genetics, specifically I'm interested in biological determinism). I'll try to boil it down a little. Let's put aside the ontology of the human sexual model aside for awhile and deal with the physical claim that evolution is the sole determinant of sexual dimorphism, and this is the result of gender roles. At once we can question this, because
a) gender roles have evolved across different societies at different rates and not in a perfect correlation with the human phenotype, including division of labour such as hunting; so have beauty standards, which have not actually often favoured reproductive ability as a general rule nor had any scientific basis for doing so
b) sexual dimorphism in humans is not actually perfectly binary anyway; the human assignment of sex is more a system of convenience and description of reproduction with quite a wide variety of outliers that completely undermine it, historically outdated, and not objective in any form
c) there are many other considerations at hand in mate selection even among far simpler organisms, which have been studied by geneticists because evolution isn't perfect
d) natural selection acts upon phenotype, which means that the results of natural selection are a combination of genetics and environmental factors (you may think this supports your argument, but let's wait a little while); it's also not by 'design' and instead a result of statistical likelihood, so, again, evolution isn't perfect or comparable to intelligent design
e) evolution occurs on different scales to a species
f) your argument literally contradicts itself by supporting itself on the existence of sexual dimorphism; sex designation in humans doesn't have much to do with distributing traits optimally for gender roles (and for anyone interested, I strongly urge looking up the history of sex assignment at birth and science, and how it has dealt with intersex individuals)
Gender roles are a product of society; we can see the interplay of environmental factors here, and how, through the various processes of natural selection, they do indeed lead to evolutionary traits that promote general human survival. However, the 'nature' argument dramatically underplays the importance of nurture in explaining how society figures as one of those most important environmental factors, which necessarily has interfered with natural selection throughout human history. Human evolution is not random, and I'm sure you'd agree with me; that very fact inhibits the working of natural selection. Instead, culture interferes with things like access to '''''optimal''' (god that is sketchy) partners, mortality, disfavouring of traits that are culturally rejected but are perfectly viable and bias towards traits that are less viable and culturally preferred, division of labour, and literally itself. The perpetuation of gender roles has strong root in human behaviour rather than any sort of innate, hard-wired, neurological tendency because it has historically favoured or appeared to favour the power structures perpetuating them. Capitalism as a modern example is a strong factor in gendered division of labour and in marketing of social roles. 'Hard-wiring' of impulses itself is a thing that occurs and is reinforced developmentally through all forms of learning.
Now I can properly attend to the socialisation argument, which of course I was always going to make. If gender roles were transmitted evolutionary, for which there really isn't compelling neurological or genetic basis, then why would have different cultures had to fight so hard to instruct and socialise members of society to behave as desired? Is it perhaps because certain behaviours and impulses have origins in the environment or in development, as well as random genetic chance, which would be accounted for by evolution solely by your theory?
We can also look at gender roles themselves; gender roles are literally not innate. They are incredibly flexible, relative, and vary from person to person, culture to culture, time period to time period, shorter than even human generations. As more and more behaviours and traits are discovered in humans, more things invented, etc., genders are typically assigned to them (usually in extreme confirmation bias, and that's the only time I'm going to use those two words -- if I were gonna shitpost I just literally would've responded with that phrase), which can't really be accounted for either by neurology or by the pace of evolution. So, your 'general ruleset' falls apart entirely because it's not at all general or universal! I'll use a quick and lazy example that most people have heard of: studies which show that, when divorced from gender roles, people considered to be women perform as well in mathematics as people considered to be men.
And finally I'm going to post the summary of my most controversial argument (and I am happy to discuss these in greater detail with people, by the way), which is that the assignment of sex at birth is itself a social construct anyway that itself interacts and is influenced heavily by cultural beliefs in gender roles (which is backed up by the history of medicine and somewhat anthropology). It is a circular argument. Since it's a lot of philosophy as well as science I'm not going to derail with it, but I think it's something interesting to consider, that your argument is fundamentally circular.
I have some reading material on this if anyone is interested, though I'll have to dig it out later when I'm not supposed to be doing stuff for school.
