(Edit: I stupidly and wrongly said:) You didn't cite anything.

(But this criticism and beyond is still valid.) All the examples you gave (some of which I know the primary literature on) don't show anything of the sort. Rather, they show that superficial features that never were known to be causal anyway are not as characteristically different as previously measured.

This just sends us back into the land of "Hmm, not really sure, here," not into knowing the extent to which various behaviors are innate.

Any kind of neuroideology is silly. The "brain is a sponge" ideology has piles of contradictory evidence. The "brain is perfectly gendered" ideology does also. The task at hand is to try to figure out what is going on by challenging our own beliefs and assumptions and performing experiments that distinguish between different beliefs and assumptions. You know, to do science.

Just because there isn't an identifiable difference doesn't mean that there isn't a difference. It might just mean that we aren't good at identifying differences. (Similarly, just because we have a stereotype, it doesn't follow that any innate differences must support that stereotype.)