Ok, let me attempt to clarify something here: in the discussion context you are talking about, "sex" and "gender" imply different things. Yes, the words are very much synonymous in everyday discussion, but here they are more specific. The word choice is unfortunate, but that's English for you.

Like so:
- "Sex" implies physical characteristics. This is not the part that is a social construct, and I have never talked to anyone who thinks it is.
- "Gender" implies mental and social/cultural characteristics. It is this part that can be a social construct, especially the social/cultural part (duh).

I found an article:
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/what-is-the-difference-between-sex-and-gender.html

You can compare to how in science, the word "theory" implies something else than it typically does in everyday discussion. Scientific fields have their own jargon, and this is not a new thing

Which is the very same transgenderism BS that never was in 80-s cyberpunk, despite OP claims of the contrary.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

The issue is trying to use the same word for both sex and gender, and I believe that's intentional by those misusing them. First someone will say that 'male is a social construct!' and they will mean gender roles for males, but then they'll use the word 'male' in the sense of sex, and use that to try to suggest that sex is a social construct. That's where you get the crazy people suggesting that men can menstruate, for example, when that's physically impossible. What you've tried to clarify in your post is exactly one of the problems.

What you describe as 'gender', I would describe as 'gender roles'. Gender roles are absolutely a social construct, not completely but definitely to some degree. Gender however is not, gender is immutable physical characteristics, ie. synonymous with sex. Trying to use the same word for different things is confusing at best, imagine if we changed the word 'chair' to also mean table. Then if I'm talking to you about sitting on a chair, you can't know whether I'm talking about a chair or a table. Words have specific things that they point to. If someone tries to redefine words in this manner, it's not unreasonable to think they have a vested interest of some sort in making communication about chairs and tables confusing for everyone, otherwise doing that makes no sense.

If you say that gender roles are a social construct, I would agree with you, to some degree. But if you say gender is a social construct, then I'm perfectly justified in thinking your grasp of objective reality is somewhat tenuous.

Trans men (that is, people who are female-to-male transgender) can menstruate, if they stop taking male hormones for a while. Where does things like "women should have long hair" or "men should not use makeup" fit, in your opinion? Just curious.

In that example, they're a trans man, not a male. Men cannot menstruate due to physical limitations, but a trans man could. See this is a good example of how you can get into trouble with the wording.

For the second, those are gender roles/ norms. Though, again, to a degree, there are some underlying biological and psychological mechanisms that are different with each gender that will influence gender roles that develop to varying degrees in a society.

Ok, so it seems you are mostly annoyed with how the "discussion" is taking place, and choice of words? I can see where you are coming from in that case.

I forgot to mention; the word "cis" is often used when specifying that one is talking about someone who is not trans. So, a cis man can't menstruate, while a trans man might.

Well for my part, I very specifically oppose the anti-reality claims that come from them trying to use the same words for different things. I would have the same resistance if someone was to say that both snails and rocks are now called 'rocks', and because of that redefinition now it's reasonable to say that 'rocks' are capable of independent locomotion and are living creatures; when in reality it's only the snails that are. You can't take physical aspects from one thing and transfer it to another just by calling them the same word, reality doesn't work like that. That's the same form of argument that I see when someone tries to claim that males can menstruate, and it's a ridiculous one.

While I think the 'cis' label is largely unnecessary because a cis man is just a typical man, if you make the claim as you state it here, I wouldn't be opposed to it because it's separating two different things.

That's pretty much what it is, yeah. The word is "adopted" from chemistry terminology, as I understand it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#Etymology_and_terminology

From the first article:
"The prefixes "cis" and "trans" are from Latin: "this side of" and "the other side of", respectively."

But just to bring it back to what I was saying before, remember male - sperm, female- eggs across all species. So it would be wrong to say 'that woman is a male', she doesn't have the right reproductive cells for that. But you could be right in saying 'that woman enjoys more traditionally male gender roles'. Her being a woman doesn't limit her in any way to female gender roles, if she enjoys more traditionally male gender roles she can absolutely take those on, but it does mean it's impossible for her to be male.

Madam, really - YOU NEED A DOCTOR.
Call me hater or whatever, but that phrase of yours gets me really worried - what if people like you get the political power?

Actually, they already got power. And because of that we (or at least Americans and UK) have such things as common public bathrooms, school showeers and prisons where trans-women can easyily sexually assault cis women.

Not in this thread - that's for sure. If you say "women should have long hair" that means you already have defenition of what is a woman, that has nothing to do with length of hair.

del

I just took that phrase to be an example of what a social/ gender norm is, not a claim that men should wear makeup, or that women should have short hair.

It also doesn't necessarily mean that she's advocating that people intentionally make themselves unattractive. Some socieites have had men wear makeup, like war paint for celts or vikings, or how makeup was used in ancient egypt for men as well as women. It is possible to have makeup on men look good - though not if they are used in the same way that women's makeup is in the modern day. You can't take something that accentuates what makes one gender/ sex attractive and just switch it to the other gender/ sex and expect it to have the same effect. One example that comes to mind, like a codpiece from the renaissance, while it's debateable whether it even makes a man look good, a codpiece on a woman would be exceptionally unattractive. There are usually good underlying reasons that gender norms or roles develop the way that they do.