I may have made this comment before here; if so, I'm sorry.

Gender cannot be a social construct. The idea that it is, is a radical feminist idea, popularized in the 1980s if I'm not mistaken. The word "construct" necessarily means "artificial." Ideas are constructs; but the realities they refer to -- if you believe in objective reality -- are not. We use constructs all the time, of course; the real question is, do we believe there is something objectively real behind them? Money and borders do not; cats and thunderstorms do.

It is not difficult to see why radical feminists would want to make gender a mere construct. Such people see the concept of gender as a means of disempowerment. But if gender is a construct, then it is not real; and if gender is not real, then being transgender is not real. This is an intolerable result; therefore, gender must be objectively real.

A lot of confusion exists, I believe, because (a) the nature of "constructs" is not understood, and (b) there are no standard definitions of verious terms based on the idea that gender is real. It's not hard. You just draw your lines between gender, gender identity, gender roles and gender expression.