Sure. But caution and the outright exclusion/presumption of guilt are two different things. Men who enjoy care taking and children are just as legitimate in those interests as women are who don't, and it's gender biases/reactionary roles that say otherwise. Whether women have their own kids, or hell, even want to have their own kids or not doesn't prevent them from being seen as innate care takers and being given permission by society to interact with kids. A woman who wants to engage with care taking or play or mentorship with kids can fairly readily do so. (This sword obviously cuts the other way where women are expected to take on this role, whether they want to or not.) Men can't, and that is sad for the men who would want to and would be great at it. I intuitively imagine that those are probably the most sensative and compassionate men who would provide a better model for what being a man could be to kids too. Reactionary Gender roles do hurt everyone, not just the historically marginalized. I don't think it's good to give them a pass or affirm them just because they happen to be hurting a historically privileged group. I think even those parts need to be dismantled and the pain they caused taken seriously.