There is a fundamental difference between anecdotes and evidence. A scientific study with a large enough selection size is evidence, like my reference
Meh. Firstly, observation is the core of science. Secondly one only needs a single counterexample to disprove a claim along the lines of the ones you made.
You keep mentioning your reference, but you never say what's in it. The way citing normally works is something along the lines of:
there is an arument which says blah blah blah[cite].
there is data[cite] which implies blah blah clah.
The way you don't cite something is: I'm right because [cite].
You can't provide a citation for your claim that there is evidence that supports the idea that human gender roles are exceptions from the norm because "noone[sic] has argued it with me"?
Nope, despite your claims that I'm a special kind of stupid, you're the one who appears to be unable to read. Try going back and reading what I wrote. You'd look an awful lot silly if you argued against real points rather than making up ones you prefer.
Anyway, what we can observe is the following:
Humans are largely, but not exclusively serially monagmous.
Humans usually, but not always couple up and raisd offspring as a pair, where both adults pool resources to raise children.
Sometimes this doesn't work and the mother is left to raise the children alone.
Sometimes (more rarely) that doesn't work and a father raises the children alone.
Sometimes, neither works and humans collectively pool resources to raise children.
That is what we can observe. What is your point?
the thing is you can't even decide if you're talking about eukariotes, animalia, craniates, vertibrates, mammals, or great apes. You keep swinging wildly between different ones cherry picking the stories that best fit what you already believe.
So how about you choose here and now which gender roles you consider the norm. You have to chose any one of the following, otherwise you're just cherry picking:
Stem land animals
So which is it? Which subgrouping are you going to chose to define "gender norms", and why do you think it is more valid than the supergroup or subgroup.
Until you define a grouping, then your claims of "gender norms" are more or less meaningless.
You need a Citation for the bolded claim.
There was no bolded claim. Would you care to restate?