"Are we really still talking about "natural imperatives"?"
I am puzzled by this sort of comment. There are certainly things that I do as a male that I consider to be built in behavior. I do not see any reason to think that women would not have similar.
What's natural isn't necessarily right; what's right isn't necessarily natural. Respectively those are the naturalistic fallacy and the moralistic fallacy.
The reason people object to the naturalistic fallacy in arguments on this topic is that it is typically used to argue for the status quo by people who benefit from the status quo.
If you would like to see an example of it in action, read the Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession and the Cornerstone speech. There you can see rich white people explaining how black people are natural slaves, unfit to any higher role in society. Which was certainly a convenient argument for them to make.
Nobody is taking an "everybody is the same" position. People are taking an "everybody should have the same opportunity" position, which is an ethical stance.
The root comment in this chain claims that women's natural imperative is to raise children, with the implication that encouraging women to do startups is therefore wrong. That's also an ethical stance, one justified by the naturalistic fallacy.
All animals, people included, have built-in behaviors. But that tells us nothing about what the right behaviors are.
I am puzzled by this sort of comment. There are certainly things that I do as a male that I consider to be built in behavior. I do not see any reason to think that women would not have similar.