No, this is also wrong. In most cases, the causal factors are simply undetermined.

If Slopp E. Scientist says, "It's biological! Look, here is some bad cherry-picked data!", this is not good evidence that it's biological.

But upon noting that Slopp didn't do the study well, we don't magically gain the knowledge that the opposite hypothesis is true. We just realize that we still don't know what's going on. (Maybe we can slightly restrict the bounds of what is likely on the basis of the poor study. Maybe not.)

We find lots of examples of behavioral flexibility, so if we want to say is it possible for a large fraction of women or men to love whatever, the answer is usually "it's possible!". But that doesn't show that there isn't a biological proclivity that would be easier to go along with--it just means that it's not so strong that it's impossible to ever overcome.

Regardless, the "entirely cultural" part has mostly not been demonstrated. "Culturally malleable" has been demonstrated in many cases.