Evolution is also statistical and a great compressor of information, so it's also possible any differences in a species with already strong selective pressures for males and females to be able to do similar tasks would be minor. Excessive variation takes more energy, if it's not worth the energy for reproductive advantage it won't get selected for. Meaning the outcome for the evolutionary process could very well be:
a) Reduced to the minimum needed to produce a reproductive benefit.
b) Emergent in large groups but rather poor for understanding individuals who are still likely to run the whole gambit of human variation.
It's like, the average woman could be one standard deviation worse than the average man at throwing rocks but...well, that doesn't tell you much about how good I am at throwing rocks as an individual*. Which puts it more in the category of "huh, interesting" rather than any kind of modern societally defining information. And when working with a limited sample size of "people near you who you can find to throw some rocks", you wouldn't want to exclude all the woman on that basis either, since you're still gonna find a good chunk of higher-than average rock throwers. And outside of people who've spent their whole life pushing themselves to the far far end of that bell curve of rock throwing, it's probably not gonna be a very big difference in the size of the two groups.
* I'm very bad at it, my dominant arm is hyper-extended so an overarm throw tends to result in a pop-out.
---
Another issue with researching gender identity and brains I can see is that consciousness and self-perception isn't exactly something we've found a "spot" for in the brain as far as I know, it's appears to be one of those 'emergent propeties' where it's just a result of a bunch of unrelated stuff happening to mix together in a way that produces it. So even if there is something in the structure that creates that mixing that produces a perception of oneself as a different gender to their biological sex, it's not like that's something you can point at in the brain and say "it's this". So whilst discussing the potential for a link is philosophically interesting and may be an exploratory method to help 'confused' cisgendered people get that foot into 'groking' it by bringing up the potential (so long as framed to not lead to the 'problem to be fixed' misconclusion), it's not exactly easy to research beyond "huh there's this statistical correlation but it's not a guaranteed thing" which...again, falls into the "huh interesting" category of facts.
Statistics are hard, large scale emergent properties are useless to individuals, you'll never know if anybody but you is truly conscious, and we all die cold and alone. At least that's what I tell myself every night