I am not a manosphere supporter, and even in cases where there is a biological driver for some behavior, that is no excuse to allow or support it. There are plenty of "natural" things that I am very happy civilization strives to overcome!

Still I think there is actual biological evidence supporting your core claims here.

We have looked at diversity in robosomal DNA (from maternal lines) and Y-chromosomal DNA (from paternal lines) to conclude that we all have approximately twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors.

Its takes a minute to understand what this means. But it means that most woman had approximately 2 kids, while notable percent of males have fewer (probably zero) offspring. This is very consistent with stats for response rates for both sexes, we see a strong skew in response rates towards the most attractive in both sexes.

But biologically if both men a woman skew strongly towards most attractive it will have a dramatic asymmetry in outcomes. No matter how attractive a woman is she cannot have babies with 30 men. But a man certainly can have babies with 30 women.

I think the evidence is that there were so really lonely males in the past!

And there is evidence that we died early from simple infections too.

Personally I am glad that society has balanced of those unfortunate states of affair. Their "natural-ness" is hardly an argument for their "correctness."

But I wonder about your claims regarding the manosphere.... I think some incels DO argue that women driven by animal nature reject them in favor of biologically more superior men. They are bitter about this, and they think that animal nature is not "fair" but I think they would accept your (and my) arguments as to why they are lonely and horny.

but I am no expert on this group!