Because, you know, people were so dumb until social-constructivism landed on Earth like the Messiah no-one expected. And we need to be re-educated. Or else.
What baffles me most is the insistence that one can build any kind of objective distinction based on subjective experiences, that is, what one feels. We're all capable of sadness, joy, excitement, and what not. But we can not build any kind of categorization (read diversity) of people based on these concepts/states of mind. I don't identify as sad, although I'm sad from time to time. No one does. Companies can not be forced to hire more sad people, for the sake of diversity. Yet, now, it's compulsory to have more people hired because they report some sort of internal and inaccessible state of mind which they express using words used for categorizing people based on the shape of their genitalia.
The only thing that's funny is that on a thread about lab rats reacting differently to male or female lab workers, people feel the need to start a holy war about topics as pointless as this one.
But one assumes that in this case the cause might be that the pheromones that people all hopped up on testosterone give off is different those given off by people who aren't .... those people would likely be cis-males, trans-males who've transitioned, trans-females who haven't transitioned, and some trans people who are currently transitioning in either direction .... we don't really have one exact word that encompasses those categories
And the researchers can be taking drugs changing their smell, possibly changing the mice behaviour.
As for why rats may develop the ability to sequence XX vs XY - if rats with the ability to do so were killed far less than those without, then rats would quickly evolve the ability to do so. This could happen if males were the ones killing rats and not females. Actually, skip the 'probably not' I began with - it's a perfectly likely explanation that may or may not be true based on further study.
It's still a developing field of study, but AFAIK the current thinking based on the evidence is that gender roles are largely social constructs while gender identity is at least partly based in biology (that is, the brain has some innate conception of gender even if many of the implications of those genders are filled in by society). And sexual orientation is yet another separate thing.
IIRC the nature-nurture studies show that nature is atleast 50% of the cognitive result on growing up. Atleast since the studies also binned a lot of stuff into "nurture" without much consideration as long as it's not nature. It might be more.
Thinking that gender is a purely social construct is just backwards to everything we've discovered in modern science. People can be gay because of their upbringing but most of the time that is just how they are. Same with transsexuality, it's mostly how people are not how they want to grow up, which should receive utmost respect. (though on the other hand, if CRISPR advances more we might have a "gay cure" and a "trans cure". Especially the ethical debate of a "trans cure" would be interesting)
> Some of this feminist/transhuman thinking, [...] are not rooted in reality
Luckily not all feminists. My sister has been one of those hardcore feminists but after having a situation in which she had to decide between getting a good grade and fighting for injustice against women, she changed her attitude that she should not fight against injustice like that if she can't uphold her principles in all situations.
Her reaction to this study now, relaxed, would probably have been different a year ago. I think a lot of people might react badly to the study and I'll keep an eye on it.
Reactions to studies are a study of humans in of itself already, observing the acceptance of data by a specific group can tell a lot about a group. Like pheromones can tell a rat a lot about a person.
In general I don't think it's as simple as being one way or the other, some people certainly seem to innately feel they were born into the wrong gender, and just want that set right, while there seem to be other people for whom it seems to be fluid, that want to be able to choose and change. I don't see it's much of any of the rest of our business other than we should make them welcome in society just like anyone else.
As far as it being a 'social construct' I think the whole thing that "people with XX chromosomes must be women and people with XY must be men, or alternatively people born with penises ...." is obviously a social thing - likely tied to rigorous western sex roles and trying to force people into them - other cultures have provided places for people with differing genders - Fa'afafine, Hijra etc and traditionally treated them differently than in the west ... so yes definitely a 'social construct'
https://status451.com/2017/11/05/i-see-trad-people/
When people think of each other as blank slates and make progressivism the only acceptable viewpoint, maybe those inclined towards social conservatism just come out doing this "progressive in name only" thing, LARPing the themes of the last century in lieu of a consistent set of values.