If I say, "we have to end the wasteful practice of putting colored lights on trees and buildings purely for holiday entertainment," how am I causing confusion about what the norm is?!

It's completely clear what the norm is. I say what the norm is. But I am also challenging it.

You don't seriously disagree with that, do you?

Maybe you're still importing a lot of context regarding the social issues around gender identity, but I don't think we can understand the phenomenon unless we're careful with the concepts we use, and it's hard to tell whether concepts are being treated sufficiently carefully without also being careful with language.

Recall that your initial charge was that the "gender is culturally constructed" attitudes were akin to "2+2 = 5"--psychological domination to get you to submit to patently wrong ideas that the speaker themselves has no belief in, precisely to leave you in such submission and self-doubt that you will accept anything you're told. This sort of psychological conditioning is very different in nature from people who passionately believe something really wrong: to them, the whole point is that they want you to believe what they believe.

This difference is, I think, really critical. In the first case, the content is almost completely irrelevant. Four lights vs. five? The moon is a hoax? The word for the day after today is "yesterday"? The sky is green? The point is to establish psychological domination so that when you come to the thing you really want people to believe or do ("tell me the security codes for Starfleet headquarters", "kill the Kurds", "peacefully walk into this concentration camp"), there won't be much resistance. And it doesn't matter much which one works. If for some reason it's easier to get people to break down and say the sky is green, sure, do that one. Doesn't need to be five lights.

In the second case, the content is central. Humans have no nature! We can be perfectly molded into anything we can imagine! So the only thing that holds us back is the limits of our imagination! Here, it is essential that the claim itself is true. If the claim is false, it casts into doubt the possibility of a Marxist society and a lot of the leftist agenda. This is serious if you like Marxism and a lot of the leftist agenda. You can't just flip to some other untruth like "climate change will render earth uninhabitable to humans in 50 years" and go on about your business.

So I think it's very important to understand what's going on here. Are we fighting a battle for truth itself, or are we fighting a battle over whether one thing is true? It's a very different battle.

(Also, keep in mind that "gender is a social construct" is a different statement from "sex is a spectrum" or "sex is a social construct". Some of your reactions seem to make more sense if you are completely conflating "gender" and "sex". But the words aren't typically used as synonyms these days.)