>The gender roles are not baked into out DNA.
Men are larger and stronger than women, women are flooded with hormones during pregnancy that force a bond between them and their children. That is literally your biology encouraging a role.
>There are 'baked-in' DNA traits, that have emergently caused cultures to adopt those gender roles in their historical contexts.
Evolution is random chance leading to mutations that improve fitness. Cultures didn't wake up one day, notice that the men were stronger than the women and the women had stronger bonds with their children, and allocate people accordingly. The divergence in traits happened naturally over millennia, because specializing the genders for different roles resulted in improved fitness over keeping them identical, and thus, more likely to survive and produce offspring.
>'Baked-id' DNA traits are now emergently leading to the abandonment of gender roles in the context of western cultures & economies.
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 (working mothers sad because they don't get to spend enough time with kids, kids developing poorly because they didn't get to bond enough with their parents, etc).
You probably think I'm advocating the 50s status quo of men working all day and never seeing their children, women not being allowed into the workplace, and children spending the majority of their time being indoctrinated by the state; far from it, and that's not even a traditional lifestyle in any sense of the phrase. I would much prefer a lifestyle in which fathers and mothers can both work and spend time with their children, as was the norm prior to the industrial revolution. But passing judgement on modern lifestyles wasn't my point.
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. You have chosen your hypothesis and your conclusion and will ignore any evidence or train of thought that might lead you astray from it. The only difference is that the pendulum of liberal vs. conservative values has not yet swung back far enough for society to call you out on it.