@NotHavingIt
Now I contribute to a forum for architecture, design and urbanism - which is 98% male. Most of the time I am a lone female contributor - but even then I have what I suspect many of the men think is a 'feminine' sensibility; and I have absolutely no interest in transport systems and the details of them - though most of the men do. They also tend to have a more technical appreciation of builds than i do - although I have picked up a few building terms over the years
And being interested in transport systems or the technical appreciation of builds is certainly coded male in most cultures. To what extent something like this is innate, to what extent it's environmental, to what extent the innate affects the environmental and the environmental the innate is not something that is at all easy to disentangle.
In theory, a woman can be interested in both the feathering of the nest and the building of it, and many are. (Many female birds do both, and I am not aware of many animal species where the female parents wouldn't also bring in the food for their young, sometimes together with the male parent, often on their own.) I'm not arguing that humans are birds but that there is no clear reason why most of us couldn't be both what is often called feminine or masculine in terms of our interests etc.
I have two anecdotes from my own life which might link to how cultures strengthen any pre-existing sex differences and turn them into gender differences.
I was once shopping with a female friend who identified as a feminist. Her young daughter was with us.
We went to one of those rooms set aside for children at some shopping centre where plastic tiny copies of various appliances and equipment were for children to play with. There were plastic cars, big enough to sit in etc.
The little girl was drawn to the plastic version of a bench press weight lifting set, but the mother drew her to the plastic version of a cooker and sink.
This was, of course, just one moment in time, but I can easily imagine how repeated reinforcement or the lack of it might have some effect.
Another example I have witnessed is a little girl who took apart a fan at home, to see how it works, and who also wrote a letter to her school about how they might save money by adjusting the heating system (which she had secretly examined). Her parents got her a sewing machine, because she was interested in gadgets. Sewing machines are coded female.
I am not arguing that we are tabula rasas at birth, far from it. But what it is that we are programmed to do is not clear to me in the innate sense.
For instance, it's possible that small children are innately programmed to be interested in how they are grouped (such as into boys and girls) and avidly try to understand what determines the reasons for those groupings.
But what they think constitutes those reasons is clearly cultural. Things like the colour pink for girls (but not for boys) is a cultural choice (and a fairly recent one), long vs. short hair is another one etc.
Then there's the likelihood that when something is male-dominated the psychological entry costs for girls/women become higher. It's less comfortable to join a group where you stand out, to be the 'token woman', to use that old terminology. So even if a woman is interested in a topic she might not choose to stay that involved (or pick a particular occupation where she would get sexually harassed a lot).
It would be very interesting to see what the remaining sex differences in interests etc. would be if we could actually bring up a group of children in a truly gender-neutral society, but that's an unlikely scenario. The alternative, for me, is to apply a critical lens to all the simple explanations and to remember that two centuries ago it was not uncommon for people to believe that women would be physically or mentally harmed if they entered higher education, i.e., we are created by our own time and place.