I always wondered - if it's purely a social construct that boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls etc., then why in most stories about a girl trapped in a boy's body we hear her say "I wanted to play with girls" (contrary to society's expectations), "I wanted to play with dolls" etc.?
I googled it up just now - http://prospect.org/article/transgender-candidate
The story of Bindaya Rana (from Pakistani), who was born as a male:
"Bindiya Rana, one of Pakistan’s first transgender candidates [...] “I used to wear my sister’s clothes,” she said. “And use lipstick and powder and nail polish. I wanted to play with dolls and be in the kitchen.” Her parents disapproved when they found her in makeup, beating her."
It's a gaping hole in the theory that we are wired differently "as we grow up due to the different experiences and upbringing men and women are subject to".
If one's self-identified gender could be overriden so easily, there would me much less personal tragedies in this world.
For example, a genetic predisposition towards competition and physical activity could lead to a general preference for certain kinds of sports, even if those didn't exist for most of human evolution.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm talking out of my ass here, I have no idea if this is true, it just seems a reasonable possibility.
You mean there might have been something else like nail polish, and people evolved a preference for that? But what would that have been? Some meshed up leaves people put on their finger nails?
Apparently there is something like a preference for being a woman, and using nail polish can be a proxy for that. But my point is that it is most likely learned that nail polish has something to do with being a woman. And the mechanism is not "I wish I was a woman so that I could use nail polish", it is more likely "I wish I could be a woman, and nail polish makes me feel like one".
Nevertheless, I am also not a biologist, just making things up. But I think some basic logic can be applied by everyone.
Lipstick -> red lips -> sexual symbol (looks similar to vaginal labia) -> more reproductive choice
But those are messages for the men, not for the woman who applies the lipstick. So is the desire basically to be sexually attractive like a woman? Or falling in love with one's reflection in the mirror?
I've read for example that kids learn their beauty ideals from the people that surround them, but there is also a taboo to not fall in love with closely related people. For example researchers looked at people living in a Kibuz and found that there were hardly any love affairs among them.
I think of lipstick as just a human equivalent of a monkey with a big red butt (which is natural, but doesn't serve any purpose other than to let other monkeys know they're in heat).
They're human ways of drawing attention to sexuality. In our society we can't paint our genitals, so we paint another set of lips. Or our fingernails, etc.
When a child picks lipstick, however, they're not being sexual, just emulating adults. They same way they copy adults tone (ever heard a kid 'scold' another kid, the same way their parents would?) Most infant animals do that too.
Possibly because they identify themselves with other girls, and are more susceptible to the same influences? If society expects a certain gender as a whole to behave in a certain way, and an individual identifies with that gender, then it's not odd that it may be influenced as well.
Not that I have no idea if this is true or not, I just find that an unconvincing argument against the social construct theory.
If someone puts a theory forward, however, it's their job to come up with plausible answers for such doubts.
The one you suggested is possible, of course. How well substantiated it is though? Theories should include some evidence that supports the hypotheses they are based on.
Just to show an example where some preference is not genetic, but there is a mechanism to pretty much hardwire it shortly after birth.
Through this discussion I wonder if it is more about how you are being valued in society. For example nail polish and lipstick are used to enhance sexual attraction. So maybe it is a desire to be valued for sexual attractivity, rather than actions, power or wealth (or whatever, men are valued for different things in different environments, I suppose).
Without that assumption, there is no contradiction in the "theory". Although it is also not a theory that can explain how people are made to feel like girls or boys. I don't think such a theory exists yet, or if it does, it has been silenced by political correctness.