The critical question isn't whether the concept of gender is artificial -- all concepts are -- but whether it corresponds to something real.

Utility is, indeed, the measure of propositional truth; and utility is subjectively defined by each person; but there is, nevertheless, an objective utility to every action, and someone's subjective definition may not align with it. And that's a problem.

Some people speak of gender as though they can define it any way they like without consequence, because the concept is artificial; but there is a difference between the subjective concept and the objective reality to which it corresponds.

Gender must correspond to an objectively real quality, for this reason: If gender isn't objectively real, then being transgender isn't objectively real; and, if being transgender isn't objectively real, then people who believe they are transgender are delusional. That is an intolerable result; therefore, gender must be regarded as objectively real.

Failure to appreciate the difference between the subjective construct and the objective reality to which it corresponds causes a great deal of difficulty for a number of transgender people. The purpose of characterizing gender as a "social construct" is to deny that it corresponds to an objective quality. I think people do this because they are uncomfortable with limits, and saying gender is objectively real necessarily means there are boundaries to it. But, rather than freeing the person who embraces this notion, it actually unmoors them from reality, which is a far worse result than what comes with accepting limits.