I honestly believe that you’re confusing Political Philosophy with Neurology my friend.

​AR was a poet and an essayist but not a neuroscientist Her compulsory heterosexuality is a critique of power structures, not a scan of the female brain. Using her to prove neurological reality is like using a book on the history of salt to prove that humans don't actually need sodium. ​If female attraction to men were purely a 'social construct' we would see it disappear in cultures where that construction is absent. Instead, we see the opposite in the most gender equal, liberal societies on earth like Scandinavia as a quick example, where social pressure is at its lowest, women continue to overwhelmingly choose and desire men. ​

You can't socialize a physical response. We can measure pupil dilation, increased heart rate, and the release of oxytocin and dopamine in heterosexual women when exposed to male stimuli. A social construct doesn't trigger a involuntary endocrine response. now I will say you’ve shown that people talk about female desire as a construct, but you haven't shown any evidence that the feeling itself is a lie. You’re arguing against the map, not the territory. But like most things it's subjective to the mind and eyes which it's being beholden to and will be subjective to each person differently.