While the Chinese certainly does have “something” about passion (人根情性), I am not sure if the section of the Chinese that has 性 is in direct parallel with the Indic text.
EA is something of a black sheep āgama. It has, for instance, substantial Mahāyāna passage, as opposed to other āgamāḥ. Compounding with this is a different layer of Buddhist Chinese language-usage. I am not skilled enough to know, but I would not be surprised if the Chinese of EA was closer to Ven Kumarajiva’s than that of the early EBT translators.
The SN section with “dhātu” is here
Dhātusova, bhikkhave, sattā saṃsandanti samenti. Hīnādhimuttikā hīnādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandanti samenti; kalyāṇādhimuttikā kalyāṇādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandanti samenti. Atītampi kho, bhikkhave, addhānaṃ dhātusova sattā saṃsandiṃsu samiṃsu. Hīnādhimuttikā hīnādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandiṃsu samiṃsu; kalyāṇādhimuttikā kalyāṇādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandiṃsu samiṃsu.
Anāgatampi kho, bhikkhave, addhānaṃ dhātusova sattā saṃsandissanti samessanti. Hīnādhimuttikā hīnādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandissanti samessanti; kalyāṇādhimuttikā kalyāṇādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandissanti samessanti.
Etarahipi kho, bhikkhave, paccuppannaṃ addhānaṃ dhātusova sattā saṃsandanti samenti. Hīnādhimuttikā hīnādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandanti samenti; kalyāṇādhimuttikā kalyāṇādhimuttikehi saddhiṃ saṃsandanti samentī”ti.
My Pāli is far from workable, and the English translation that SuttaCentral links us to is in an older format with a different numbering system, so I am unsure as to how to read it.
This passage though, the only part of SN 14.15 directly mentioning this as a vocabulary element, comes from the very end of the sutta. In contract, this is the section of EA that contains 性:
爾時,世尊見諸神足弟子,各 將其眾而自經行。爾時,世尊告諸比丘:「人根情性各各相似,善者與善共并,惡者與惡 共并,猶如乳與乳相應,酥與酥相應,糞 除屎溺各自相應。此亦如是,眾生根源 所行法則各自相應,善者與善相應,惡者與 惡相應。汝等頗見舍利弗比丘將諸比丘 經行乎?
It occurs almost immediately after the exposition of the āgama, the end of the āgama also seems to not line up exactly with the Indic text. One thing also to note is the abundance of dhātavaḥ in the Indic, and the sparsity of 性 in the Chinese.
That being said, it is a usage of 性, but reconstructing the Indic original that this was translated from, as to be sure that it is definitely translating dhātu exactly, is a heavy task, since it seems clear that the parallel is a very “loose” one between these texts, IMO at least.
Alternatively, someone with a better knowledge of Chinese than I may have a look at that passage and see if it lines up with the section of the SN-parallel that features the word ‘dhatu’.