There is nothing in that study that says this is due to nurture instead of nature.

They trained a model to distinguish male study participants from female study participants based on resting fMRI data, which does not support your claim that they process information differently. Surprise, surprise, with an expressive enough model, this was possible with 90% accuracy. If they trained a model to distinguish employed people vs. unemployed people, I suspect they would have gotten a similar result because those two groups would be thinking about different things and thus consuming oxygen in different parts of their brains. Heck, the interaction between the gender of the MRI operator and the sexual preferences of the "healthy young" study participants would be enough to produce measurably different brain activity.

Nature versus nurture is a pointless differentiation.

Epigenetic changes from exposure are a natural process. There is only nature and our natural ability to delude ourselves with arbitrary language constructs.

There will be a margin of error to every cause we decide fosters an epigenetic or other biological mutation; good luck mapping out a person's entire sensory experience since everyone lies and more charitably just forgets. Entropy is a bitch like that.

With respect; show numbers. Over the years I have found this forum to be over confident in its hunches to take the word of a pseudo-anonymous rando seriously.

In other words; pics or gtfo

Anyway, different math means something else entirely and does make this wrong.

1+1=2 does not invalidate 3-1=2