If anything, what I read from this is a very Fe way towards approaching communication. Whether I think it is submissive or not I don't know as Fe can be very aggressive and pushy too.
What I am describing though, is the opposite of pushy. Even if it can be placed in the "Fe" category, that category would need subcategories in order to represent the different sorts of communication styles. I am familiar with Fe becoming pushy and it is a different phenomenon that what I am describing. The MBTI category are low resolution by nature and so if strongly delineated behaviors/processing fall into the same category, they can become misunderstood when diluted into a set of lower-resolution assumptions. Does that make sense?
So does each of us then start off as a liguistic tabula rasa, absorbing the language patterns of those we identify with, look up to, or simply associate with? This would suggest that any M/F differences are entirely the product of conditioning. On the other hand, if women who have a more "masculine" language style developed it by preferentially absorbing the language patterns of men (or women with that style), and then used it in traditionally masculine settings, that could easily indicate a natural preference for those modes of expression, interaction and activity.
My understanding is that there is a significant degree of gender conditioning in society, but your question about natural preference for T/F directing one's attention towards whom to imitate is something that is difficult to measure. I suspect that every configuration occurs. For example, everyone in my family is strongly "F" oriented, and I was personally drawn towards reasoning and made choices to connect my life with clear thinkers. This has had some affect on my language use, but not in terms of expressing dominance.
Interesting. My interests seldom overlap with those of women in social settings, but then their use of such a style wouldn't help. I am used to speaking my mind and having the other person do the same. The kind of conversational deference you describe would make me view the other person as indecisive, inarticulate, even evasive, as if they have no opinions of their own, or are trying to avoid revealing them. If someone cannot push back effectively, there is little point in conversing with them. I will resort to a more deferential style only in certain limited social situations, e.g. among elderly relatives at a funeral, where I am just trying "to be polite".
It is worth noting that the external expression of opinion does not necessarily represent the internal realm. My reason for not expressing opinion is somewhat reasoned. If I sense that a person will argue in a closed manner, what purpose would it serve to express an opinion strongly? It would be a waste of energy from my perspective. I have also noticed that in competitive environments people want to feel successful and reassured, so dominating them does not seem to serve a purpose either. For that reason, in most real-life contexts I tend to focus on keeping the peace because it is a kind of social/emotional efficiency. In the same way that INTs like efficient systems internally or externally for more "objective" system, I prefer this for the fuzzy, subjective systems.
The female authority figures who accept me professionally tend to be extremely "T", but have a broad enough gender perspective to not judge the submissive communication style and to look directly at my work. It also helps that I don't get offended, and have noticed that these women do end up offending a lot of people, both men and women with their dominant, direct style. I genuinely like their communication style because I don't have to expend energy interpreting layers of meaning, which strangely enough, I have had to do far more often with many male authority figures in the arts. I have had some positive interactions with male authority figures who have tended to be INTP and sometimes an ENFJ.
I cannot say I have ever had experiences like these, and I have spent my entire academic and professional life in predominantly male settings. The world is full of gender bias, and I wonder more and more how I have managed to escape so much of it. Perhaps my initial presentation discourages these unwelcome digressions; perhaps I automatically nip them in the bud by refusing to accept them as part of the conversation. I don't know.
There could be a number of reasons including your field being in the sciences, but I'm not sure about that. Also, if you more closely match the required communication style of that context, then it might help keep you in a different position. Also, if you are focused enough in idea space, it is possible that some occurs that slips notice. It would be interesting to figure out the exact reason.
I will mention that the male authority figures that were oppressive to me also behaved negatively towards gay males and/or Feelers. It would be difficult to compare experiences, so their rejection could be equivalent. In one instance a strongly feelingful gay male had a worse time with one conductor, who he described as a "monster", and I concurred.
This comment referred to my tendency to submit in personal settings. This is an area I am trying to change because it is not reasoned or healthy. I do it because or environmental experiences in my life which have diminished my sense of self, but I now make a conscious effort to exert myself more. In settings where I sense the person cannot or will not negotiating in communication, I don't attempt to dominant with my ideas because that seems more like a waste of energy. I need to focus on more assertive communication in contexts where it will be accepted.