I agree. In this case I think extra factors must be taken into consideration.
First is the "violation of least surprise" principle. Linux as a UNIX is traditionalist to a fault, sometimes obsessively so beyond what is helpful. Scrolling is typically done inverted in X11.
So, that means this would need to be a configurable option.
From the standpoint you're talking (where the comparison is to macOS), now you're in UI territory, which has typically never been one of Linux's strong points.
Someone has go build the UI, but then that'll only be for one given desktop environment, and so now you have duplication of work. Unless every DE does that work, if you're not using one of the DEs that has done the work - well, you get no radio selection group or dropdown or whatever.
There are very real reasons why Linux isn't best in class. The politics, infighting and greybeard traditionalism does more to hurt the "it just works" flow other environments have.
(Note that I'm not saying "politics", "infighting" and "greybeard traditionalism" are the same thing; they're very different groups and issues, but they combine to form stalemates and inertial cancellations. For example, when traditionalism met systemd, the result was a vicious catfight instead of unified action. Things could have worked out where the community met Red Hat's lobbying with a list of terms and requirements. Nah; everyone just threw their hands up in the air and screamed instead. This is what's broken in Linux. I think KDE had it sorted in 1999 when they pragmatically grabbed the still-closed-source Qt and made a desktop environment out of it. Then GNOME came along and drowned everyone more political overhead than the W3C and Internet working groups combined, and user experience is definitively worse for GTK ever being created.)