How do you know that confusion is the goal?

An alternative hypothesis is that it is an expedient premise for formulating simple arguments, and any other consequences to confusion or whatever are unintended side-effects.

Suppose you note that there are more men than women in tech, and suppose you want to argue that there should be the same number. If someone objects that tech inherently appeals to the typical man more than the typical woman--it actually reflects an intrinsic difference--what's an easier argument? To carefully assess intrinsic differences as best as can be managed, or to declare, "gender is a social construct"?

In the one case, you have all kinds of uncertainty. In the other, you can dismiss your opponent without thought. This is awesome! It's almost like magic!

And that's it! Nothing deeper. Just immediate expediency. Elevate a supportable observation ("gender roles have socially-defined aspects") to a universal law ("gender is a social construct") and win arguments, at least in your own mind.

As long as nobody rudely challenges you by pushing on the details, nobody will notice that something strange might have happened to our view of reality. (E.g. don't ask impolite questions like "why is the patriarchy bad and done by men, over and over throughout the world, if gender is purely a social construct?")

So, how do you distinguish the immediate expediency hypothesis from the brainwashing "2+2 = 5" or "there are four lights" (Star Trek TNG, Chain of Command) hypothesis?