> All I'm saying is that biology has a great influence on the roles people take up, and you can try to fight it all you want, but if you try to claim that the influence isn't there and it's all just a whim of culture, then you are engaging in the exact same kind of willfully ignorant anti-scientific thinking that people ridicule flat earthers and climate change deniers for.

Whoa, now that's some giant leaps you're making there.

First, that biology has an influence does not mean that it has a great influence. History shows that the responsibilities of the sexes have varied significantly over time and over geography. That society is a great influence is well-known (seeing how many behaviors change over time and place); the degree of influence biology has is uncertain, and so I'd argue that making that seemingly subtle leap from "some influence" to a "great influence" is more science-denying than downplaying biology. You are making up scientific results, while the other side simply concentrates on the results we do have (i.e. that society has been found to have a great role in this issue).

Second, while it's true that women have usually been the primary carers of children, in some cultures (even in Europe) they have also been the primary breadwinners. Your leap from "affinity to children" to "role in the workplace" is completely unjustified, and also lacks imagination regarding possible social structures. Which brings me to:

Finally, and most importantly, you are associating a negative ethical value with "fighting biology" in this case, which is not only unjustified, but very biased. Evolution has not designed humans to fly, yet we've built airplanes and found them very useful. In fact, all of technology, from wheels to augmented/artificial intelligence, is about "fighting" biology. Yet you seem to associate a negative value only with the attempt to change what you see as a natural difference between the sexes, a difference that consistently allots women far less power than men in society. I think that even assuming you are right about the biology (although I see no good scientific reason to believe is the case), this is no less worthy-a-cause to "fight" with nature than any other battle we face with it. Nothing can be more scientific (and human, and generally positive) than the will and ability to "fight" nature (in fact, it is the climate change deniers who deny our society's ability to affect nature).

To summarize: 1/ there's nothing to be willfully ignorant of, as we don't have results showing biology's great influence in this area; 2/ whatever biological effects are there, they have little to do with the social structure we're fighting, and 3/ even if nature is found to play a major role somewhere in this equation, "fighting" nature is what technology and humans in general constantly do, there is hardly anything more scientific, and this is as good a cause you could come up with.

P.S

> A liberal swing in culture is trying to encourage people to abandon their traditional gender roles, is upset when the majority of people want to stick to relatively traditional roles, and is confused when the people that do buck the traditional roles usually end up unhappy about it

We are not upset -- far from it. In fact, we've expected nothing less. Society never takes change kindly, and we don't expect it to. And yet, in spite of these growing pains, society keeps changing, and often for the better.