An origin doesn’t have to be a point. It can be a process. As I understand it, you have identified the origin of the biology — culture system as an evolutionary process that begins with social primates, ancestral to humans, whose social behavior is governed primarily by animal instinct, with perhaps a bit of culture sprinkled in. As evolution proceeds, the cultural aspect becomes more and more dominant until it takes over, while retaining biological processes that guide the development of culture. It is easy to see the evolutionary advantages of culture over instinct. Would you consider this an accurate explanation of the origin of the cultural — biological system?
Ms. Leguichard’s article was specifically focused on brain differences between the sexes. She explicitly stated that cultural rather than biological processes were responsible for creating those differences.
She tacitly implied that the differences are artificially imposed and not the result of a natural process. She asserts that culture influences biology but denies that biology influences culture.
Interesting that you should mention language as an example. No one is born speaking a language, but every normal person is destined to learn one through a process that a could be considered natural and involves biological structures and processes, mediated through culture. Differences between male and female brains (and therefore behaviors) may or may not have an innate component (I am undecided with regard to that issue), but differences are destined to develop through a process that could be considered natural and involves biological structures and processes, mediated through culture, as is true of language.
I have explained the biological structures and natural processes involved in developing brain differences between the sexes in this comment:
I have further clarified my explanation in these two comments:
