You've got it backwards again.
My contention is this:
You acknowledge there is such a thing as "human nature."
In acknowledging the existence of human nature, you must further acknowledge that "nature" may indeed differ in character and magnitude when comparing men and women.
If you will not acknowledge that possibility, please explain by what mechanism you deny it.
I visualize the situation as normal curves. Men & women have different normal curves but there is overlap and in the area of overlap the individual differences overwhelm any difference due to being male or female.
In the aggregate men are stronger for example but in that region where the normal curves of men & women overlap on strength a particular woman can be stronger than a particular man.
Human nature is defined by the lowest depths & highest reaches a human can achieve. The normal curves for the various attributes of human nature are different for men & women. In those many facets which make up human nature, some sets of curves overlap more than others. Yet in all cases there still is overlap ergo in the final analysis the deciding factor for human nature is the individual not the sex.
In acknowledging the existence of human nature, you must further acknowledge that "nature" may indeed differ in character and magnitude when comparing men and women.
This may be the problem in a nutshell. There is no single quality called human nature. "Human Nature", as I have said, it the result of the interplay of many traits and is bounded by the best & the worst of human activity.
Saying that this "human nature" is something that can be measured in aggregate and is different in men & women in character & magnitude is asinine. Human nature does not have a character or magnitude axis because it is a totality. That is why I talked about facets of human nature or traits.