> I thought the person you were responding to was making a very thoughtful point, and one that was very respectful of women and the valuable insight some of them have that is often overlooked.
The problem is his comment can very easily be read as "Women should do what they are good at". This implies "taking care of kids and home" for many invested in this narrative. On contested topic like this, we should try to phrase our comments very clearly.
> People have no obligation to buy into others' narratives.
Our society seems to work best if we agree on fundamental "narratives". Equal opportunity being good is one of them. Actually, not really, since perfect equal opportunity would require us to not be able to help our own children more than others can help theirs. But let's not get into capitalism/class stuff but back to gender.
A talking point the other side likes to make is "wanting equal outcomes". Nope, that would be stupid. But significantly unequal outcomes are a good indicator we'll find unequal opportunities when we look into it. Or some other reason. But the other side very quickly likes to accept "men and women are just different" as other reason and prefers to disregard e.g. fixing societal feedback loops via affirmative action. That finally brings me to your first part:
> If peoples' experiences and psychology (in my layman's understanding of agreeableness) show that women tend to be more empathetic than me
I don't think we have hard scientific research data showing to what degree this is based on nature or nurture. The latter would be problematic since against the spirit of equal opportunity. Of cause that question is hard to answer, since randomized controlled trials are impossible and understanding the physics and it's emergent properties is still beyond us.