The Paradigm of a Mandatory Heterosexist Order of Creation in Genesis 1-2 is often heard today in American Political Calvinism.
It's to underpin the Maître Pierre Chanteur late 12th century reading of Romans 1.26-27, which makes me suspect that they actually know it doesn't hold water...
And it seems to be a totally new Paradigm, borrowed from Rome's ideas on a Complementarity of 2 opposite Genders, not seldom including heavy stresses on the sub-ordination of women.
But even in Rome this can't be much older than the idea of antagonistic genders itself, which is 19th century. Industrialism, middle class, Modernity.
This new Paradigm is unknown in Sweden and personally I never encountered it before the year 2000, nor have I been able to trace it further than 1978; Don Williams: The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church?
There are claims to a Karl Barth prehistory to some of it, though I would be very much surprised if there was anything like a paradigmatic reading there (there is no connection at all in the quotes I have seen). Also he should have been very well aware that Genesis 1-2 are two different stories, not one.
So my conclusion is that this is a 1970ies product of a 1960ies Heterosexist Agenda (going back to Kinder and Küche, Bluth und Boden). Dr Dobson's child-beating Focus on the Family is a parallel.
American anti-modern social politics in Biblical costume: The mixing of State, Religion and Social Politics.
But to my mind Paul absolutely excludes the possility of any such interpretation in Galatians 3.26-29, saying ouk éni ársen kaì thelu, here is not male and female, denying the very gender-differentiation used in Genesis 1.27. Galathians 3.26-29 doing away with our Ethnic, Social and Biological categories.
In the Congregation we are all one in Christ Jesus. Not separate but Equal.