We're not going to overwhelm the guidelines with a list of fallacies and their explanations, but we could possibly put a link to a list of fallacies in there. Although that may be a compromise that pleases no-one. — Baden

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

https://yourbias.is/

I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's not helpful to engaging with philosophical claims because doesn't really address them. In the face of a claim regarding what is true or not, fallacies only pick out some element of logical structure of an argument.

Pointing out a fallacy doesn't actually tell us about whether a philosophical claims is worthwhile. People argue poorly (or not at all sometimes), for true claims. If we are thinking about pointing out fallacies, we've lost sight of what we are interested in. We cease to be investigating what is true or which claims are worth accepting, and have insert became obsessed whether someone has said a word we think to be wrong.

The VR of fallacies holds no truths. All we see there are some rules we've grown to like playing in, a game of handing out jellybeans or not, depending on whether someone has said all the right words. Fallacies are for debaters, who are not interested in learning anything. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:scream:
This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've seen you make. Where did you learn philosophy? Logic is the branch of philosophy that reflects upon the nature of thinking itself.

Your post is essentially the outcome of post-truth. I can only imagine all the logical inconsistencies of Trump's that you all pointed out in an effort to show that what he said is false.

Without logic, how do you filter out all of the contradictory and subjective non-sense coming from all directions? How do you determine the truth-value of a claim or statement? The problem with most philosophical questions, isn't the use of logic, it is the misuse of terms.

For anyone to understand anything you write, your words must follow a logical pattern.

So you are wrong, it is not being overlooked. — unenlightened

. So it wasn't discussed since being mentioned the OP. That was my point.

“She accepted everything,” Ms. Sandberg said. “And I thought this was very girlie.

And here you have a great example of how the left is just as guilty of placing labels on people and putting them in arbitrary boxes that fit their assumptions, as the right.

What you and the teacher are doing is confusing the wide variety of human behavior that isn't governed by sexual characteristics and labeling them as "gender".

Whimpering and being passive isn't an indication of being "girlie" (whatever that means in this sense). It is an indicator of having low self-esteem or self-worth which a male could exhibit as well. The teacher taught the girl self-worth, not how not to be "girlie", or more "boyish", as those are the very stereotypes that you want to eliminate.

nor is there any suggestion in any country being discussed here that all children be raised by the state. — unenlightened

Really, then what is this?:

“This is what we do here, and we are not going to stop it,” she said.

It seems to me that the left is okay with a parent having the choice whether to terminate the child's life or not while the child is still physically dependent upon the mother, but once it is out if the womb, the child is ours (the state's). Does your link provide any information that the parents mistreated their child or treated their daughter differently than they would a boy? It seems all speculation on the teacher's part - that they raised their child as a "girl" rather raising her as they would have raised any other child - one with a lack of self-worth.

I have a daughter and two boys and I've taught them both to have a good sense of self-worth. It has nothing to do with feeling like, or being labeled, a boy or girl.

After my daughter read this, she was offended that a teacher would equate her "girlness" with whimpering and letting others walk all over you. Being a girl has nothing to do with that. It has to do with how one values themselves, not anything to do with "gender" - whatever that means.

That is a clear description of the effect of parental upbringing being undone, and the parents' negative response to it. — unenlightened

Sure, but you're ignoring my wife's own personal experience. If anything it shows that we don't know the influence a teacher has over a child as opposed to their own parents. You seem to think that a teacher's influence will always be greater than a parent's. This simply isn't the case.

What is being overlooked in this thread is the psychological development of a child BEFORE it gets to school. The environment that the parents provide and how the parents behave are adopted as the norms for that child before it even gets into the educational system. My wife has been a teacher for 20 years and I have seen how the development of each child before they are placed in the public educational system has a drastic impact on how that child behaves in school and how it even perceives authority figures in general.

This thread also ignores the natural inclination of children to see things innocently. The way they explore and adopt ideas about the world is a personal experience, not some social construction. You can observe babies discovering their bodies and forming their own concepts about the differences between themselves and others by the age of two.

The point here is that if the left really wants to achieve the "honorable" goal of gender-neutrality, then that would really entail forcing hormone treatment on pregnant mothers so that the fetus adopts a more sex-neutral state (so those sexual differences aren't noticible) and then removing all children from their parents after birth and raising them all by the state. It seems to me that it would also have to abolish private Christian/Jewish/Islamic schools as those reinforce the binary sex/gender concept.

Parents should have options on where to send their kids to school and the ideas that their children are exposed to. This is why magnet and charter schools are good alternatives to the public school system which is essentially failing our children anyway. This is how you create diversity, not by applying gender-neutrality which actually stifles diversity and tries to make everyone the same.

Downvotes weren't actually an option, just upvotes. The main issue was that there was a cumulative total on a user's profile and an option on the members list to list members by the total number of votes they received creating a hierarchy of users, and most people didn't want to live in my shadow. — Michael

My suggestion would be to display the name of the people who upvoted so we can determine if any favoritism is skewing the results. In such systems I've witnessed people upvoting illogical statements and claims of others simply because they like the person and agree with their position.

Nature does not precede culture. Environment and culture are part of nature. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This seems like a contradiction. Nature does precede culture as nature is the amalgam of all states/environments.

Nature is reality - what is real. Like you said, the biological differences and similarities are real, meaning that they are natural, and a product of natural selection.

Culture is a kind of environment. An environment is a part of nature. An environment applies pressure on genetic fitness. Culture - as an environment - can apply environmental pressure on our genetic (evolutionary biology) and psychological/behavioral (evolutionary psychology) characteristics.

Organisms, as part of the environment, act as part of natural selection by becoming selective pressures themselves on other species. Predators and prey create selective pressures on each other, in a special relationship that evolves each species in special ways. Culture can be thought of as the selective pressure from the ideas and behaviors of a particular group of organisms on the physical and psychological aspects of individual organisms (I'm using "organisms", not just "humans", because aliens could have culture too).

Any time a body causes anything, it interacts with its environment. There is no biological cause without an environment. There is no impact of the environment without the affected person's biology. The Nature vs Nurture dichotomy is a myth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes! This is what I've suggested before in this thread and in others. The science article in the OP mentions this idea as well. Could it be that we are beginning to see eye to eye - that gender isn't just a social construction?

Let's say a person has gene which causes them to have a trait. The genetic effect cannot occur without the environment a person interacts with. They present with this genetic event only if the environment allows. If they were in a different environment, one which would alter the gene/what the gene produces, a different trait would have been caused. Genes cannot have their effect without an impact of environment. No genetic event occurs without its suitable environment. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There are genes that are influenced by the environment - sure. This is a natural process and is has a scientific name for it - epigenetics. Another field of science that I mentioned - evolutionary psychology - posits the idea that our minds are affected by natural selection as well.

Similarly, an environmental or cultural impact on someone's behaviour or traits cannot occur without their genetics and wider biological. A human, for example, can only be influenced to learn a language or cultural practice because their body/biology responds in a particular way. If human biology was different, if we didn't generate these sorts of experiences in response to social environment, we wouldn't be subject to a cultural influence. If my body didn't respond to hearing people speak by learning language, no-one would be able to teach me their language. To be socially influenced, I need my particular body, my biology. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Agreed. Like I said, you can't lift a fallen tree with your nose and you also can't teach an elephant English.

There is no infinite regress because biology and environment were never isolated. SOmeone who exists is, at all times, a product of both biological and environment states. There are no causal events which are the body or environment isolated. Every single state of a person is a product of biology and environment. There is never one without the other. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There's no infinite regress now that you've admitted that everything isn't socially constructed, not because biology and environment were never isolated - which is just wrong. Biology is a recent state of affairs in the universe - an exponential increase in complexity in this corner of the universe - one that came about thanks to the sustainable energy the sun has provided over the past 4.5 billion years. Environments have always existed since the Big Bang. Biology has not. In other words, nature precedes all, as everything is part of nature.

So, it seems to me that we agree mostly, and maybe are just disagreeing on terms at this point?

I am referring to different stages of an individuals life, I'd say, if you were assigned a gender at birth you're powerless to argue against that until you're at least eleven.

It is not my argument, I think gender being socially constructed is a ludicrous notion. I don't think you are representing your opposition as well as you could but I don't feel like arguing further about this.

Good luck arguing against those who think gender is socially constructed, I've given up on them. — Judaka

First, thanks for your participation in the thread.

Second, it was never my intent to try to change those that have a political agenda to push because they're irrational and that would simply be a fool's errand. They aren't interested in logical truth. Political agendas often ignore the bad science they are based on. I'm more interested in reaching reasonable people who enjoy skepticism and are willing to question the status quo and and be open-minded. I'm a scientist at heart and abhor politics and politicians who almost always lie or warp the truth for their own ends.

It depends upon the context. Blind obedience is the kind of logical fallacy that you are talking about where someone assumes something based solely on it's source of authority. Avoiding this fallacy is essentially exhibiting your freedom to question the status quo.

On the other hand, a hierarchy of positions of authority can lead to more efficient workforce, or military force.

They would have a different gender identity, not biological gender. But gender as it's used in language and culture rarely focus on the biological, except for within medicine and biological applications. So if we are talking about a cultural approach to gender, how it exists within a society, how it is referred to, how it affects social interactions etc. gender in that sense has nothing to do with biology and all about the construct society formed around the biology. — Christoffer

So "gender" is a cultural characteristic - something that is part of the identity of a culture, not an individual, and "gender identity" is one's perception of one's self relative to this cultural characteristic of a particular culture? So, in essence one isn't changing one's "gender" when moving to a culture with a different "gender". They are changing their "gender identity".

So when someone says that they feel like a woman, they are referring to their gender identity, not their gender. Gender is a social construction and gender identity is not. Gender identity is a personal view. Is this all correct?

Go back and read the page again. I asked that question twice. Once before your question, and then after in an attempt to get you to answer. You're not paying attention.

What happened to the fact that I just asked you a question (that you haven't bothered to answer)? — Terrapin Station

I asked you what it feels like to be a woman or man first. Stop evading.

You also never answered the "what is P in the contradiction" question above.

So we're back to one thing at a time, because you're ignoring stuff. — Terrapin Station

I have been addressing the contradictions (they are numerous) in virtually every post.

Is there wiring in the brain for menstrual cycles?

http://www.health.am/gyneco/more/brain_memory_modifies_wiring_during_the_female_menstrual_cycle/

If this is the case, then when a man claims to feel like a woman is it the case that he has some kind of wiring difference in the brain that is in contrast with the rest of his physical sexual characteristics. If so, aren't we talking about biological factors, and not social?

Do you disagree that our different levels of estrogen and testosterone make us feel different?

Minds have a particular sexual characteristic--you mean that in terms of mental content, there are characterstics associated with biological sex F, and other particular characteristics associated with particular sex M? — Terrapin Station

Then wouldn't you say that is what it feels like to be a man or a woman?

Gender is male/female/etc. conceptually. Concepts are mind-dependent. — Terrapin Station

As far as I know minds only exist in individual heads on a particular body with a particular sexual characteristic. Are you saying that society has a mind?

Psychological and social, yes. Different from biological sex. There's nothing to debate, really. People can feel they are different than their biological sex says they are, especially in relation to the social norms that become associated with biological sex. It's handy to have a term for that. The term we use for it is "gender." — Terrapin Station

So then "gender" only refers to that group of people that feel that their biological sex is different than how they feel (I thought the term for that was "transgender"), or to the relationship between transgenders and the social norms, but not the relationship between cisgenders and social norms? Which are you actually saying? You seem to be excluding cisgenders as a gender.

How does it feel to be a woman or a man?

Biology is empirical.
How we relate to our own biology is perception.
How we categorize that perception is an individual construct.
Categorizing that perception into an individual construct is through comparing individual perception to social norms of perception.


Therefore, gender identity is a social construct. — Christoffer

Sounds like it is all personal thought processing to me, based on one's own individual experiences. Are you saying that if a cisgender or transgender moves to a different culture, they would have a different gender, or not?

They're saying that relative to social norms with respect to gender, as correlated to biological sex, they feel the social norm doesn't match their psychological reality — Terrapin Station

Re this, for like the third or fourth time now, what I said was: "Psychological and social, yes. Different from biological sex. There's nothing to debate, really. People can feel they are different than their biological sex says they are, especially in relation to the social norms that become associated with biological sex. It's handy to have a term for that. The term we use for it is "gender." — Terrapin Station

Ah, so you finally read the whole post and created a whole new post to respond to the same post. All this does is make it more difficult for readers to follow.

So now the distinction is between psychological and biological factors? This leads us to a metaphysical discussion about the difference between mind and matter where I say that there is no distinction. Evolutionary psychology is a scientific theory that posits natural physical processes shape our minds and how they function. The causal relationship between our minds and the rest of the world shows that mind and world aren't different types of things, just different kinds of things.

Not only that, but if you are saying that one's psychological reality is a social construct, then you are essentially saying that we engage in group-think all the time. Do you believe in the uniqueness of one's individual categories, or are they all social constructions (the product of group-think)?

Tell me what in the rest of your post is relevant to what I said, and if I agree, I'll paypal you $1000 — Terrapin Station

That the definition they are using is inconsistent. You owe me $1000. Bitcoin?

Re that, you can do that, of course, but you're just not going to understand a lot of what people are talking about in that case. It would be as if you're intentionally courting confusion on your part re what a lot of people are talking about. — Terrapin Station

Again, your post doesn't take into account the rest of my post. I would again, suggest readers to go back and read my post prior to the one TP replied to here as a response to this post.

Wait, are you saying that something statistically unusual isn't real? — Terrapin Station

No, I asked if it was useful to recognize and be knowledgeable of the statistics. It was a question, not a statement.

Definitely there are some physical or behavioral differences statistically, most not universally, correlated with biological sex, and that definitely influences gender concepts, but that doesn't amount to gender not being conceptual/mental. What we're referring to by "gender" conventionally is something conceptual. — Terrapin Station

Isn't it useful to recognize and be knowledgeable of the statistics, especially when it's as high as 99.9% for the topic we are discussing - the real differences between sex/gender? If not, then why have statistics?

Because "gender" hasn't been defined consistently as something other than sex, I consider sex the same as gender.

You are right in the fact that there are behaviors that different cultures expect the different sexes to engage in. The fact that these behaviors are a characteristic of a culture, that is to say that it is part of the identity of that culture, and vary from culture to culture, is evidence that these aren't behaviors that are indicative of one's sex. They are simply human behaviors that that are expected by a particular culture, based on one's sex, and vary from culture to culture.

So, for someone to say that they feel like a woman when they were born a man, what are they actually saying - that they feel like a social construction, or a biological sex, or something else entirely (and if so, what)?

If someone is able to make a personal decision about what gender is AND that decision can run counter to the expectations of the culture they live in, then how is it a social construction?

If gender is socially constructed (i.e. not determined by the individual) then it's subjective and CAN be determined by the individual. — Judaka

How is this not a contradiction?

Gender is the male/female/etc. conceptually. Concepts are mind-dependent. — Terrapin Station

I'll agree with the last part, but not the first. In regards to the last part, do you agree that minds themselves are independent, and do you consider a social construct as group-think? Is there a distinction for you when it comes to independent thought and group-think?

There are social norms with respect to gender conceptually. Basically, this is ways that individuals think about gender, where that gains some social traction via others agreeing on the conceptual divisions, and then that's enforced via social behavior, social expectations, etc. — Terrapin Station

Okay, you answered my question. Gender is an individual concept, or feeling, and then there are social norms that can either support or reject one's individual feeling of gender.

If biological differences are real then how does that not lead to real differences in behaviors and expectations of others. Females seem to have this need to keep the male around to help rear the children rather than her doing it all by herself while the male wants to be promiscuous. Is this a social construction, or natural behaviors stemming from natural (biological) causes? It seems to me that marriage is a social construction that limits a males natural inclination to be promiscuous.

You have acted like transgender people have unified views on this subject but they don't. That's the only thing I am trying to get across to you. — Judaka

Right, which would't be a social construction. If different people believe in different things then that isn't a social construction. It is personal preference based on personal experience. It is only when a group of people adopt a shared understanding of something that it becomes a social construct. God is a social construct in which different versions exist within the American culture (freedom of religion). There are many subcultures that can exist within a culture, and if culture itself is a social construction, then that throws a wrench in to how we define culture. In essence, culture ceases to exist, and all is left is our real biological differences and similarities that lead to real differences and similarities in behavior.

Seems more like psychology than politics. — Michael

You probably want to read the previous exchanges between NKBJ and I to understand the context of what you quoted..

Does psychology precede politics in your view? In other words, do you need to explain someone's psychology in order to explain their political views?

This is not true for all transgender people though, there are those who feel like they're a genuine mix. There is also of course an interplay between their personal gender identity and the social roles they know. — Echarmion

In which case, we could label them as non-gendered because they aren't part of, or don't participate in, the social construction of gender. They have essentially rejected the social construction.

No he doesn't, actually. He just claims that his depression is caused by the experiment. He can't prove it, though, because it's impossible to know what his life would have been like without the experiment. — NKBJ

So where is the evidence that a man actually feels like a woman, or vice versa? You seem to accept ideas that have no evidence that support your political viewpoint and reject other ideas that do have evidence because it doesn't support your political viewpoint.

If gender is socially constructed (i.e. not determined by the individual) then it's subjective and CAN be determined by the individual. If it is biologically determined then it is the way it is and cannot be determined by the individual. — Judaka

Did you even read the definitions I provided? If you want to claim that it is subjective, then it can't be a social construction. It would be personal - a personal choice - that could actually go against the social norm. A transgender rejects the social construction. How can something that is socially constructed reject a social construction?

Well, I've asked twice now how you determine the distinction between what is socially constructed and what is natural, but you avoided the question both times. I can only assume that there is no difference for you - that every "independent" thought that we have isn't really independent at all, but is shaped by culture. What you are essentially describing is the lack of free will of individuals in a society. What you are proposing leaves no room for transgenders or homosexuals to realize and choose their own gender/sex. If gender/sex is a social construct then how can a person in a society even come to the realization that they might be something different than the social construct?

Another problem is how your argument leads to an infinite regress of social constructionism. I'll tell you what, let's take a ride down that infinite regress and see where it leads.

If everything is a social construction, then the distinction between culture and nature is a social construction. The theory of evolution by natural selection proposes that humans and everything that we do and create, are simply natural outcomes of natural processes. Culture itself is a natural process. So what humans like you are doing is projecting their anthropomorphism onto reality as if reality (their mind) is a product of society, not nature. Your own theory inexorably leads to that conclusion and the science supports it. Maybe you might want to take a look at evolutionary psychology which proposes that natural selection (a natural process) shapes the mind, and culture is just another aspect of nature, or an environment.

So, in your view, does nature precede culture? If not, then how do you prevent your theory from falling into an infinite regress?

Just as you did here, they try to claim biology is somehow impossible unless there is a social fact of a particular sex category. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wrong. I said that biology is impossible if not for the differences and similarities. If there aren't just two sexes, then why don't humans have a wide range of features? Why don't some of have trunks for noses, tails, or some other organs that we might or might not refer to as sexual, or gender? Here's the quote:

If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between. — Harry Hindu

Why are these five traits occurring together in such large numbers as to create these clusters of biological realities?

This is true of anyone. If everyone got up tomorrow and understood they just didn’t have sex or gender, their bodies wouldn’t be altered at all. The social fact of being categorised as one particular gender or sex has no impact on the body. The biological reality has no concern for how it is categorised. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If differences between bodies are real, then how is it that doesn't determine "fate"?

Form is an epiphenomenon. Our similarities or difference in form never explain anything. All casual events are achieved by difference of existence/body. In the case of any entity, any similarities or differences in form are achieved through the difference of their own existence — TheWillowOfDarkness

Our similarities or difference in form explains the differences in behavior. Can you lift a large fallen tree with your nose? An elephant can.

If social constructionism isn't a cause, but a state, then what is it that you propose to change (the cause) that leads to a new effect (gender-neutrality)? Also, how is it that you have come to realize any of this on your own if your ideas are simply the result of cultural constructionism and the culture you grew up in constructed a binary concept of sex and gender?

It's not just about differences, but also about similarities. If every organism had a completely different form, and nothing looked similar, then I would totally agree with you. But that isn't the case. Similarities exist as well and we group things together based on their similarities as much as we separate things based on the number of differences vs. similarities.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc.

Biologists from different cultures agree on the hierarchical categorization of life, of which each sexual species reproduces in a similar way as opposed to asexual species.

As outlined in an earlier post, the use of "social construct" doesn't mean a social cause as opposed to a biological cause, but rather refers to a certain kind of state: the state which is our act of thinking about the catergorisation. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yet we have our own personal categorizations based on personal experiences that can come into conflict with the socially constructed ones. How do you determine which ones are based on personal experience vs being programmed by culture?

If you are using society or culture as the reason for the existence of some mental category, then you are essentially saying that it is the cause of some mental category. There is no difference between some state or some cause. Every state is both a cause and effect.

Yeah, I've commented a few times in the thread now, in response to people who seemed to be denying the social aspects, that the idea of gender (re a way that someone feels) wouldn't make much sense if there weren't social norms about behavior in relation to this stuff. — Terrapin Station

For a transgender, how they feel (gender?) is in direct contrast with social norms (gender?), hence the stress that they report in being treated unequally. How a cisgender feels is in congruence with social norms. The discrepancy can only be explained by using two different terms, and how they relate to each other. On one hand we have people referring to a feeling as gender, while on the other we have people referring to a social construct as gender. It doesn't make sense to say that gender is a relation with itself. Either some feeling is gender, or some social construct is gender, and then we have either feelings or social constructs (whichever one gender isn't) that either have a relation of opposition or congruence with gender.

Hence why I wrote "(at least in the broader, conventional conversation in society)" — Terrapin Station

So, does that mean that you disagree with TheWIllowOfDarkness?

David Reimer can blame anyone he wants for his mental issues, that doesn't mean he's right about the source of them. — NKBJ

Okay, so you can claim anything that you want but that doesn't mean you are right. Isn't that why we have things like evidence? Doesn't David provide that? Where's yours?

I don't think you CAN feel a certain gender. You can like certain ways of talking, acting, and looking more. But that's not a "feeling" in the sense of identity. Like, if I dye my hair, it's not cause I "feel" like a brunette, it's cause I like to look that way. — NKBJ

Liking something is a preference and a feeling. Your preferences are part of what define you.

My point is that there is no logical inconsistency, but that people need to carefully differentiate between biological sex and constructed gender. When you do that, there is no logical inconsistency. — NKBJ

No one (at least in the broader, conventional conversation in society) is claiming that. The whole idea is that gender is distinct from biological sex. — Terrapin Station

TheWillowOfDarkness claims that sex is just another social construct.

The logical inconsistency is in how you are conflating social construct and some personal preference. I provided the definition of social construct above. Another inconsistency is the transgender's preference to participate in those stereotypes. If gender is a social construct and a stereotype, then abolishing those stereotypes effectively abolishes gender. Gender would then be a non-existent thing.

The phrase "gender is a social construct" refers to the binary gender system. The criticism is that it excludes transgender people, who feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity. — Echarmion

Yet their innate gender identity is conforming to the binary gender system. I pointed this out in the OP:
Well, you might ask, if not for pink over blue, how does a person determine their gender? If gender is a social construct, then the only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture. — Harry Hindu — Harry Hindu

I don't see how that follows. — Echarmion

You said that transgender people feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity. I pointed out that they do adopt either role - the one opposite their "innate" one. They end up reinforcing the gender stereotype with their behavior, even to the point of changing their sex so that they feel more comfortable engaging in those socially constructed roles (their bodies (which TheWillowOfDarkness now claims is just another social construction)).

No disagreement here. Calling something a "social construct" is not a criticism in and of itself. Constructs can and should be judged on their usefulness and consequences. — Echarmion

Wouldn't you say that it would be useful for cisgenders to be able to recognize each other without having to look down people's pants (before getting to the bedroom) - maybe even more so now that we have this sexual/gender flux?

Being a nonparticipant in a social construct carries consequences though. Which is why non-uncles may have legitimate reasons to campaign for amendments to the construct of an uncle. — Echarmion

Being a non-uncle has no consequences apart from your own choice to not participate, which is why I chose that as an example of how we should view non-gendered people, which was the whole point of my argument.

Maybe, but I'm not interested in the ad hoc "just so stories" of evo psych preachers here. You don't go to the Flat Earther for an account of Earth in 3-dimensions.

I'm interested in people who are studying the subject in question, gender and sex, in relation to individuals, identities an society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is no "maybe" about it. The claim that sex is a social construct undermines centuries of scientific knowledge (and I was lambasted for questioning the status quo).

It seems to me that in order to keep defending this position, you have to get even more extreme. But lets deal with the logic of your argument.

If sex is a social construct too, then what is the difference between "sex" and "gender"? The distinction that was made between "sex" and "gender" was that "gender" was a social construct and "sex" is biological.

If sex is a social construct, then what about species? What is your benchmark for deciding what parts of reality are socially constructed and what parts are socially-independent (or what some might call "natural")? The difference between humans and apes could be socially constructed.

If gender is socially constructed then that means it's a learned behaviour which means you can unlearn it. — Judaka

You are conflating social construction with personal choice.

Here's the definition of social construct per Merriam Webster:

an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construct

Wikipedia says:
Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual.

I believe that evolutionary biologists will not say that they are referring to social constructions when using terms like "males" and "females" when explaining how sexual reproduction evolved.

With sex or gender, this state of the social environment, the "social construction," is a concept/categorisation/language used to relate to people. It's not a distinction of a biological influence as opposed to a social influence, but an analysis of the sort of state (no matter its biological and environmental causes!) in question. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then why is it that some people want to focus on culture as the primary source of one's gender and focus on changing only culture. I have yet to see anyone make the claim that we also need to make changes to our biology to get to a gender-neutral "utopia". Is this what you are suggesting? What part of our biology would we change?

The phrase "gender is a social construct" refers to the binary gender system. The criticism is that it excludes transgender people, who feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity. — Echarmion

Yet their innate gender identity is conforming to the binary gender system. I pointed this out in the OP. — Harry Hindu

Some people call themselves non-binary and genderfluid. So I guess those guys think gender is socially constructed and they can swap as they want. — Judaka

But if gender is socially constructed, then gender isn't something that they have a choice in swapping for themselves. It would only be within the power of society as a whole to swap their "gender", not based on their own personal choices. — Harry Hindu

I'd like to expand on this part a bit.

If gender is a social construct, then a gender's binary, ternary, decimal, unitary or sexagesimal quality is just another social construct. At any point a citizen of some culture could revolt and claim yet another "gender", but if it's not recognized by the culture, then it isn't what society defines as "gender". In essence, the individual would be non-gendered, or not part of that cultural heterosexual game that heterosexuals play. That isn't to say that they are unequal.

A comparative example would be the identity of "uncle". "Uncle" can refer to the biological relationship between a male and his sibling's offspring, or could refer to the socially constructed idea of a male mentor, or role model, for a young person. If a male doesn't engage in the act of the socially constructed version, does he reserve the right to redefine "uncle" for his own purposes and declare that the term needs to be redefined to suit his own subjective idea? No. Of course not. In essence, they would be a non-uncle, or non-participants in that cultural construction.