I will read the book. But feminism in the past had many groups-from the radical feminists to the NOW feminists to the "I'm not a feminist but...". Most ppl will probably fall under GC rather than radical feminism. Gender stereotypes may be a means of who has power over who, but denying any biological basis isn't going to work either. Eg.- males of many species ARE more aggressive- it is part of their reproductive imperative- they don't fight for access to females because they are bored. The primacy of the female in the survival of children is biologically based-from pregnancy to breastfeeding.

I agree with you - some "stereotypes" have been quite credibly proven to have basis in nature. I wish we could have radical feminism that acknowledges that..

Fwiw, I consider myself a radfem and I acknowledge that our biology/nature affects somethings that can create "stereotypes", especially relating to childcare and such. Biology is famously the science of exceptions, so as long as the stereotypes aren't treated as law for all women (or men) then it's fine by me. But biology goes a long way to explain the behaviour of the sexes in many other animals, that humans would be an exception is silly to me. That we maybe somewhat uniquely able to rise above some of our baser instincts/programming in some instances (females especially seem capable of this) because of our brains even compared to other primates... well, there might be something there. But we are not above or separate from nature. I know there are radfems who see it this way, and some who don't. I think most will acknowledge that nature affects us to some extent at least.