Thanks for taking me up on the prompt and spending the time to pad out the opinion with substance, this way a sensible debate is possible.
You have a few misconceptions on this topic. I will argue on user JesusLovesEwe's behalf because to me it is apparent that he and I concur and want to steer into the same direction, just for a (on the surface level) different motivation.¹ I hope he does not mind and I hope his and my courses of thought are as similar in reality as I assume they are.
You say we are "scared" by a non-traditional woman. That's wrong, the correct word is concerned. We indulge in our protector instinct and simply want women not come to harm.
You say we think women are "gullible and sheepish". That's wrong, the correct word is uninformed. What is happening in reality is that women simply do not know how destructive to themselves and society at large their behaviour is because they were never told what the real consequences are. They hence cannot learn from the bad example and avoid making the mistakes that damage themselves and others. A cultural narrative was created that even portrays the destructive behaviour in good light, I wish you were not complicit in propagating this.
You say we think of depriving women of agency. That's wrong, we want to educate, lay out the conclusions, and let them modify their behaviour by themselves. Persuasion, not force. An adult's agency must be informed by accurate information, so the cultural narrative of falsehoods mentioned before must be countered first, and I think that science is a great tool in that fight. If women knew what they will do their future selves, most of them would refrain from living out the destructive behaviour.
As an aside, the vast majority of people are not educated in psychology, and thus do not know why they behave the way they behave. The "some force" when it comes to intersexual dynamics is actually mostly instinct, a good deal of learned behaviour, and a little bit of rational thought. IMO the basics of this should be taught to everyone in school.
¹ With a username like that, I must assume he argues from a religiously informed moral angle, which in a sense I see as a shortcut of thought. If we go back in time and see how that doctrine was established, we would find society experimenting, recording, comparing and eventually propagating what works best (or perhaps a local maximum), optimising for stability/overall happiness. I, too, want people to be happy, or at least not fall into the trap of easily avoidable suffering.