>>29295044
>The world would be greatly improved if instead of traditional gender roles, we taught kids about tops, bottoms and switches.
Kids aren’t “taught” traditional gender roles in the West, and haven’t been for a long time. There’s no “how to provide for a family” class for boys or “how to be a mother” class for girls. At most, some schools still offer home ec, but it’s open to both sexes and sees participation from both.

>Bottom males trying to be tops and top females trying to be bottoms just because society expects it is a recipe for dysfunction and dissatisfaction all around.
Like >>29295128 points out, the overwhelming supermajority of women (like 95%+) are natural bottoms. The remainder are nearly all switches. This isn’t arbitrary; it likely reflects biological sex differences. That’s one reason traditional gender roles are so “sticky”: they echo underlying human tendencies, not just social whim.
Besides, everyone knows that they shouldn't jam themselves into rigid social roles just because "muh society says so". Societal guidelines in the west are general guidelines. They’re the distilled life advice of countless generations — “this is a general recipe for a life that works.” Plenty of people experiment outside them while still understanding their practical value. Honestly, if you can't sort through that wisdom while exploring things like this, that's kinda on you. Most people can.