Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man. The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.
Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.
Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.)
We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.