I think you're seriously misreading the above person's comment to the point of putting words in their mouth. Saying "X gender is less likely to be interested in

I think you're seriously misreading the above person's comment to the point of putting words in their mouth. Saying "X gender is less likely to be interested in Y" is not saying that people of that gender "aren't supposed to like Y" as you put it. It's making the observation of different gender distributions. Women are more likely to be interested in equestrian sports. This is an objective fact, there's more than 2 women for every man in equestrian sports. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a man that shares this interest. It's also difficult to see a correlation between weaker gender roles and more interest in STEM among women. If anything, the correlation is reversed: more equal countries see less women interested in science and technology [1]. Different preferences of toys among infants are observed even before they're able to talk [2][3]. It seems to me that these claims of societal influence or bias is rooted in the assumption that everything is going to be perfect 50/50 distribution, and thus anything that doesn't conform to an equal distribution is evidence of some sort of pressure or bias. On what grounds do we claim that 50/50 interest in science and technology is the default? This is almost never answered, people just postulate it as fact. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more... 2. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.h... 3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01624-7