It's so funny when dudes like this try to use an argument from nature, especially around sexual dimorphism.

The vast majority of animal life in Earth are non-mammals. Of those that show sexual dimorphism, the female is usually larger than the male. fish, insects, a good number of birds, a good number of lizards all have larger females. Even in mammals you still have some examples of larger, impressive females like hyenas, although admittedly much rarer than in other clades.

The angler fish in particular is pretty interesting, in a creppy way. The angler fish with the big scary teeth and the little light on its head? All of those are female. The males are tiny and latch onto the females where they are absorbed into her flesh. Yeah, gross.

Since this stinky cockroach man is using birds as an example of human masculinity for some reason, let's compare humans to birds for a second.

Sexual dimorphism in birds is all over the place, in owls the females are sometimes larger and more richly colored, however like with lizards there are many cases where the males are larger (Fowl for example, although human selective breeding has exaggerated this for farming and ornimental breeding).

So yes in birds (particularly the likes of pheasants and birds of paradise) there are many examples of colorful birds that try to catch the attention of opposite sex with bright colors, accessories, dancing and so on. There are vulture species that use iron dust or mud to dye their feathers rusty red, one of the only examples of make up use seen outside of humans (although both sexes of vultures do this).

But wait a minute. Dancing? Make up? Bright colors? Isn't that what these trad guys think should be the traditional role of women to perform? Cockroach man hardly has the glam of a male peacock or cardinal? And traditional western femininity is hardly as drab as a peahen. What is he even talking about? Why aren't you wearing lipstick in that case, roach boy?

Using birds to prove the so called rigid natural roles of male and female becomes even more ridiculous when you consider that even in examples where males are larger and more flashy than females, you have things like chickens, who's females change gender, grow spurs, crow and take on the social role usually taken by a rooster if they feel like it, the term alpha was originally coined to describe hens.

The right are clowns who oversimplify these very complex systems for personal gain. They anthropomorphize and deify processes that are diverse and that we don't fully understand enough to ascribe grand purpose to. Anyone who tries is more often than not trying to project their own "everything has to be part of a big mystical plan" brainworms that in the case of westerners were probably inherited from Christian extremists and 1900s eugenicists, the stink of which never truely left Anglo education.

Yeah if you can't tell I hate how much people make assumptions about nature because 99% of it is vibes based, outdated half-knowledge gained through cultural osmosis rather than what the actual research has shown us. It doesn't help that the even in academic settings the natural world and research into the life of animals is plagued by outdated societies projecting their outdated ideals onto animals (for exame a Queen bee acts nothing like a human Queen, does not act as a superior to the workers bees in any way and more akin to a brood mare than a ruler. But that idea that a Queen bee is the bee with the highest status still persists)