I did answer your question.
Your mistake is thinking that biologically based patterns are somehow absolute. At least in the case of behaviour. So that if we say that there could be a biological basis for interests or maybe play behaviour, we could then conclude that someone who doesn't fit the typical pattern is in some way the other sex.
That is clearly not the case with other biological sex patterns. Like height. Men and women as a group have biologically based height patterns. We all see them around us, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who did not notice these patterns, which are not learned or socially constructed.
And yet, when you see a woman who is 6'3, well into typical male heights and very unusual for a woman, or a man who is 5'6 and within the female norms and unusual for a male - no one thinks they are the opposite sex.
And no one thinks that somehow we can't have a biologically based, real pattern, and also individuals who don't fit the pattern.
No one tries to claim height is a social construct. Or learned.
It is entirely possible to say there could be biologically based male and female behaviour patterns, but girls who like meccano and climbing trees are still girls.