The reason for me asking this: I've been reading JeeLoo Liu's "An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy: From Ancient Philosophy to Chinese Buddhism". It's an interesting read - one of the things that struck me is how similar the associated concepts and elements of Yang (masculine, heavenly/celestial, lit, active, generative) and Yin (Feminine, earthly/chthonic, shadowy, passive, receptive) are to Proto-Indo-European metaphysical conceptions. Some of it can just be chalked down to patriarchy, but it makes me wonder to what extent, if any, there was Indo-European (e.g. Tocharian?) influence in the Zhou period, as the Yijing took shape.
Certainly there was pre-Qin Indo-European influence on China. Definite impact on society and material culture. To quote myself from an earlier related answer to https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/al8o27/indoeuropeans_and_early_chinese_civilization/
Either the Shang rulers were of Indo-European origin, or partly of Indo-European origin and retained many elements of Indo-European culture, or were non-Indo-European but adopted many elements of Indo-European culture
with transmission of technologies such as bronze and iron working, chariots, plenty of linguistic influences, etc.
But to credit such influence with "heaven = masculine, earth = feminine" is rather less certain, since a heaven-earth masculine-feminine thing is common, and it's a 50/50 thing to go heaven=masculine, in the absence of any common influence (or some innate bias towards heaven=masculine). Maybe influence, maybe even probably influence, but it could easily be chance. Hard to tell, since any such influence would predate the history of yin-yang (unless historical record of yin-yang is somehow much older than I think). Unlike some other pre-historic things, ideas like this don't usually leave much archaeological evidence.
What you suggest has been argued by others (e.g., Evancovic, 2011, but, well, read the paper). But IMO it would be nice to have some good evidence.
For some fun further reading, see Pulleyblank, E. (1966). Chinese and Indo-Europeans. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (1/2), 9-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25202896 (but the discussion about the Ch'i-lin (Kirin) should pay more attention to the unicorn not being purely mythical but also the Chinese rhinoceros).
Reference:
Evancovic, M. (2011). WHAT OR WHO REALLY IS THE TAO? THE ARYAN VEDIC ORIGIN OF YANG-YIN (ŚUKRA-KṚṚṆA) PHILOSOPHY AND OF TAOSIM (ADHVĀCĀRA). Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 92, 52-55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43941272