On the contrary there's more than enough evidence below to dispense with the OP's article's claim that sex differentiations in behaviour are learned.
''The first notion Stewart-Williams dispels is the blank-slatist claim that there are no average differences between the sexes. In a useful appendix, he summarises research on the behaviours and personality traits that have shown large and repeated differences between males and females. Some of these are obvious but not often recognised as innate sex differences. One is the strong difference in sexual attraction: most—but not all—men seek women as sexual partners, and most women seek men.
Psychological research indicates that men and women also differ strongly in how they seek mates. On average, women prefer older partners with high status, while men are more drawn to youth and physical attractiveness. Men have a higher sex drive and are more willing to seek casual sex. And once in a relationship, men show far more sexual jealousy than women, being preoccupied with a partner’s sexual infidelity, while women’s jealousy is more emotional than sexual, focusing on a partner’s commitment to the relationship.
Another difference we know well: in every country surveyed, men commit vastly more crimes of violence than women, including roughly 90 percent of all homicides in America.
One of <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.md/o/cbCEc/link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7?ref=quillette.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the largest and most repeatable differences between the sexes is <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.md/o/cbCEc/onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/icd.2064?ref=quillette.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the toy preferences of children. On average, young boys prefer male-typical toys like trucks, blocks, and toy soldiers, while young girls prefer dolls and kitchen equipment. This difference shows up very early in childhood and holds across societies worldwide.
The list goes on, but I’ll end by mentioning differences in preference that seem to translate into professional inequities. On average, women have more interest in people than things, which partly explains why occupations like computer science and engineering are dominated by men while the health and social sciences harbour far more women. Related to this are observations that men are better than women at “systematising”, defined as “understanding and reasoning about systems, including natural systems like atoms and galaxies, abstract systems like logic and maths, and human-made system like machines and computer programs”. Women, in contrast, are better at “empathising”: putting themselves in other people’s shoes and understanding their feelings and motivations.
You can see this last difference in <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.md/o/cbCEc/jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2839314?ref=quillette.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a compilation of sex differences among young American doctors in different branches of medicine. Fields involving less contact with patients regularly show higher proportions of men: anaesthesiology (62 percent), radiology (71 percent), neurological surgery (73 percent), and orthopaedic surgery (76 percent). Fields demanding more contact with patients, and presumably requiring more empathy, show a preponderance of women: hospice and palliative care (63 percent), dermatology (66 percent), and paediatrics (75 percent). Yet across all fields of medicine, the proportion of women among young doctors is precisely 50 percent, suggesting little bias against women entering medicine.
Stewart-Williams notes that such differences could reflect sociocultural pressures like socialisation or bias rather than innate preferences, but we have some data against purely social explanations. <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.md/o/cbCEc/psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-15054-001?ref=quillette.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Two big <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.md/o/cbCEc/pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4945059/?ref=quillette.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">meta-analyses, for instance, show little evidence for the differential socialisation of boys and girls—and, anecdotally, we all know of despairing parents who tried to give their children gender-neutral upbringings, only to see them revert to behaviours characteristic of their sex.
In some areas there is also evidence against systemic bigotry. <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.md/o/cbCEc/journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/15291006231163179?ref=quillette.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">A recent study of sex bias in STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—examined six metrics of professional success: grant funding, papers accepted, strength of letters of recommendation, hiring, teaching ratings, and salaries. The data showed parity between the sexes in the first three areas, a preference for hiring women, and an advantage for men in teaching ratings and salaries."