Until the twentieth century, capitalism promoted what we consider the “traditional” family and gender roles - yes, this is true. Although other systems also promoted the same thing. Promoting traditional families and gender roles wasn't unique to capitalism.
So can we return to traditional definitions of gender and sexuality - I don't think this is what people like Owens and Murray want.
We have a great many freedoms - freedom to be gay, unmarried, trans, whatevs - and we want to keep that.
What we desperately need is common sense. Sexual and other minorities are fine but they are minorities, numerically speaking. Each member matters as an individual but the % of people who are trans, for example, is statistically insignificant.
The solution to this is to put individual identity over group identity.
That's the problem with identity politics - and it's what Murray and Owens were discussing - identity politics puts group identity above anything else. So you end up with an ideology that seeks to strait-jacket people, metaphorically speaking.
Not all black men love hip-hop or rap. Some may like chess or ballet.
Not all gay men like 'gay' things, etc.
Edit: yes, I think Murray and Owens want to return to traditional definitions of gender but not sexuality.