Yes, you've just stated your theory in more detail. You haven't supported it. Specific citations, please, with emphasis on how exactly you distinguish between nature/nurture, and accounting for confirmation bias.

Please cite the "pieces on Gender relationships" you're referencing.

While some theory focused on how in the XIX century men opressed woman the field I work tries to determine how women fought back, both cultural despiction and historic research lead us to think women seek a way to empower herself through the same tactics men used to exclude them. While women were often closed inside the house they adquire an authority over House problems and issues. Etc

This has nothing to do with the biology of gender or sex.

This different roles are asigned soccially but the posibilities are determined by the canvas/world that is segmented into signs (this actually camed from Linguistic Formalism). In this case biology, from the way the brain works to sexual biology (hormones. Menstruation, etc.) is a difference that is used to arrange a structure/system.

Why are you talking about literary criticism to prove assertions about biology?

A woman has a different aproach to things that would only get a meaning in the structure/system (is sometimes called ideology or power relationship) here we can see "femenine" caracterisations can be positive or negative.

But why are you maintaining the difference is based in biology rather than culture? Do you have any evidence to support this?

the diference on the sexes

You're asserting this difference. You have yet to prove it, or indeed provide any evidence for it.

Biology is an important part

You're asserting this. You have yet to prove it.