Carroll apparently has concluded that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not think that labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It would not tell Carroll anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist, because it would not tell him whether I believed the things he things are most important. Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological characteristics determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however Mine wanted to characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no poarticular evidence that P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she thinks P holds it.
P is a novelist and poet.
She has written some political theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male exploitation of women during the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the grand Coolie Damn, but unlike you or me, she does not normally write her views down as political propositions intended to be directly evaluated. I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in various ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate roles, as she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the French revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly absed to very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range.