Unfortunately you don't deal with much of what I pointed out, apart from casting some doubt on my example of meekness.

I am no expert in meekness, but I am a clear thinker. Just because various groups used nature to impose their moral sensibilities on to society, doesn't at all mean that masculinity and feminity solely stem from the influence of said groups.

Behaviour stems from many things. Nature and nurture both influence hugely. Some genes can also be turned off, on, emphasised and deemphasised depending on environmental cues too.

I'll give a few more examples whose universality is pretty compelling.

This first example exists on both the side of males, females and in the animal kingdom - respect for seniority, elders, size, strength some kind of pecking order and some form of authority.

This exists among chimps in males and females, in different ways.

This exists in crocodiles, with big males being dominant.

This exists in great white sharks, with females being dominant.

It also exists in far too many species to further enumerate. It also exists right across human societies - in Europe, Africa, the Americas, Asia.

Obviously, this doesn't say much much about femininity and masculinity, but it does show convincingly that respect for seniority and status is something universal. In some species this equates merely to respect for size. In others, like humans, chimps and orca, it is more to do with age and knowledge.

A more convincing explanation than yours would be that this stems from physiology and social structure and then is highly emphasised by group dynamics and culture to make it even stricter.

Another example just from human society.

Band societies choose leaders with a non-hereditary system of deliberation. This seems to be quite universal.

We start to see hereditary rule with later tribes. This seems to be quite universal and suggests that the shape and size of society may spawn its own universals and not the especial culture of each community.

Do institutions cause culture or does culture cause institutions? Both I would say. And more could be at play. Yet you would say that it is only culture causing everything. You have no real proof of this and it is all but impossible to prove. Hence why I adopt my position.

You may say all this is different for this or that reason. I may say it's the same. This is also one of my points. Difference and sameness are impossible to agree on because we lack criteria that anyone will agree on. What will connote enough sameness to equal universality and enough variation to equal difference will be very hard to decide.

One further example. Killer whales do have culture. Apart from us, they may have the most sophisticated culture on Earth.

There are 10-12 different types - these are called ecotypes. Pods also vary a fair bit within each ecotype in terms of their peculiar habits.

Yet, it is grandmothers that are always the teachers and leaders of pods who pass on all their knowledge to the pod and guide it. Large males will eventually leave.

This is universal for pan-orca society.

I think a far more sturdy, balanced and honest appraisal of all this would be to say that a great many things cause behaviour and how society works.

However, you argue that it's only culture with only your reading of history, cherrypicking certain examples, as proof.

This argument boils down to a tautology - culture causes culture. And absolutely nothing else is involved.

I understand why some may like this position as culture can be changed by fighting back and it make a movement more powerful.

Nonetheless, given all the back and forth between genes, physiology, environment, institutions, culture, politics, and a lot more, it's very unlikely to be true. And you have no strong reason to adopt such a position as well.

Strong claims require strong proof, which you lack.