Who was right?

>or female if you got a fire cock.
>fire cock

Ignorant SJWs are conflating the word "gender" with "gender roles." Gender roles are, at least in a certain sense, a social construct, but that doesn't make them bad. The fact is, men and women fell into their appropriate gender roles because it was the most efficient way to delegate work. In this sense, you could say that the gender roles are entirely natural. The way in which these fundamental roles are carried out is what can vary from culture to culture, but the idea was always the same and always born out of the necessity for an efficient way of delegating work as a means of survival. The fact is, this natural system is still the most efficient way of life for human beings. It makes no sense to force women into heavy lifting roles, potentially injuring her and at the very least causing disproportionate stress while having the man she replaced in the heaving lifting job take her place doing something a woman can do when he could be lifting something heavy. The only way anyone could have a problem with natural gender roles is if they're completely blinded by ideology.

>gene expression regulation, endocrinology, and chromosomal abnormalities don't exist
>"gender" isn't taken to have a meaning distinct from "sex," where gender is the social representation of the thing and sex is the thing itself

I mean liberal sex politics are bizarre but /pol/ spams this kind of thing to cover for its own pseudoscientific ideas on the matter. "We're implicitly right because we're in opposition to this nonsense" and so on.

Most construction can be done by women, you fucking tard.
Electrical, drywall, framing, do you know how many twinks ive seen doing that shit?
Women aren't these dainty, weak little flowers you think they are and can keep up with most men.
Besides, civilisation is progressing to the point where old gender norms are outdated (and they weren't even that good to begin with)

>Let's say gender is a social construct.
>What's the concept behind it?
Philosophically speaking, social constructs are pragmatic theories of truth. This is a generalization of classical truth (i.e. X is true if X corresponds to reality) to X is true if X is a socially useful belief. You can think of "construction" then as the actual social dynamic underlying the belief's utility. Bear in mind this is a different meaning of the word "truth." It can make sense to view certain areas with this more general, coarser lens, like art and aesthetic theory, but postmodernism is fervently skeptical of "meta-narratives" in -all- areas of life and human knowledge, and so relies centrally on this concept for social theory, when honestly you need a materialist perspective on it to say anything either rigorous or substantial.
Anyways its like the difference between studying normed inner product spaces and general topological spaces
Not that "social construct" is necessarily a pejorative either, though it's often used that way.

C-can I have pics of construction twinks pls

One sec, just gotta find my non consentual construction twink photography folder

>altimeters

Both

Sex is determined by your chromosomes, the vast number of chromosomal disorders turning it into an intersex spectrum of xxy xyy xxxxyy xyyh etc.