Correct, I do not believe these experts understand their own subject matter well enough to support some of the claims they and you make.

You are happy to believe that a different set of experts don't understand their subject matter well enough, when it comes to classical evolutionary psychology. Experts sometimes get caught in self-affirming mantras that they'll almost all break out of if you have a pleasant chat with them, but which still dominate their writing and conclusions. It's easier to see those from the outside than the inside. In your case, your outside perspective was anthropology; in my case, my (relevant) outside perspective is (primarily but not exclusively) the philosophy of science. Not that it matters very much; the content of the argument is what is of principal importance.

Your initial article says, "I’m simply saying that [violence] is not their human set-point and that cooperation and connection are much more deeply ingrained in all of us."

One main line of evidence you use to argue against the opposing position you express here: "[some men believe that] violence is just a part of who men are, they believe, even though the Paleolithic age began approximately 2.6 million years ago and pervasive violence and war only became common about 12,000 years ago."

And so the question is: how big of a difference was it? Was it enough to demonstrate that violence wasn't part of the a set-point (perhaps which always needed to be reined in)?

That there are multiple easily-found instances of pre-age-of-war reports of skeletons with severe injuries consistent with inter-human violence is very much "there" to your expansive premise of "men are not naturally violent" as per your story title.

For the narrow premise of "unrestrained aggression is not inevitable", well, you only need to point to modern-day Japan. (Which has, and has had since shortly after WW2, very low rates of violence despite being strongly patriarchal, having intense dominance-hierarchies, etc..) If you prefer to point to modern-day and ancestral hunter-gatherer tribes, well, that makes the point too, but neither Japan nor that argue against natural violence, only that any natural tendencies can be restrained to a large extent.

And you haven't clearly articulated an intermediate premise.

I fail to understand how you can take arguments and evidence directed precisely at your claims as "not good faith discussion or debate" and "performatively argumentative".

There is a very big difference, from a practical standpoint, between "men are hopeless--they are violent and there's nothing to be done about it" and "men have no more proclivity towards violence than women--all we need to do is stop actively training them to be violent and everything will be lovely".

Indeed, if one gets this wrong, actions that one predicts should help may actually hurt instead. That's why I think it's important to challenge your assertion.

You seem to be asserting the second position, but your evidence is only strong enough to demonstrate the first. If you actually have a more nuanced position in the middle that is decently well supported by evidence, I might not have a quarrel with that, but it isn't clearly-enough described anywhere for me to discern what it is.