If you have been involved or observed the discourse around gender over the last decade you will have encountered the phrase "sex and gender are different." Two other phrases will often immediately follow "gender is a social construct," and "sex is how you're born and gender is how you feel and want to be."
First issue, how can you innately be a social contruct? You can't. By definition a social construct is external to one's self. You also could be one gender in one culture and a different culture in different gender based upon how each culture constructed gendered traits.
Second issue, if sex and gender are inherently different why can there no be parallel discourse about sex based oppression of female humans and a separate discourse regarding discrimination against gender non-conforming individuals? Human females have had their individual liberties withheld for five millenia so males could "own the means of (re)production of human beings." Transwomen are still of the sex that requires far less investment and risk for progeny. Transmen are still of the sex that (literally) carries the majority of burdens related to human reproduction. I don't see a reason why the basic inequity females experience because of assumed fertility can't be addressed as a different and separate issue from ways in which society needs to change so that gender nonconforming males, be they trans, nonbinary, drag queens, gay, or simply effeminate are no longer threatened by other men in male spaces.
Third issue, If you understand there to be a difference between sex and gender, why is gender the battering ram on the provisions in society for females? Accommodations most often campaigned for, created and administered by females who saw inequality in how opportunities and resources are allocated between male and female people. It wasn't until 2012 that women's boxing became an Olympic sport. It was just 12 years later when biologically male athletes, with functioning testes were dominating the landscape of Women's Olympic Boxing.
