Yup, and the whole purpose of science is to burn away all the ideological bits wherever we can. To find out what is true regardless of what we think. A highly ideological definition of science! Surely this is what we would say all methods of epistemic enquiry set out to do, including gender studies? Do you really think all these thousands of academic papers along the lines of "what is gender?", "does gender exist", and so on, establish the conclusion (namely that gender is a social construction) before any of the premises, simply because it 'feels right'?

If you start allowing ideology into the conversation just because you know it must be there, you've subverted science and now "science" is something else. How can a set of ideologues (humans) conducting epistemic enquiry not be necessarily ideological? And my finer point was about how this scientific information is transmitted: by an informer of science, who must also be an ideologue, thus ideology must enter into the teaching of science, thus criticising gender studies on the basis that it is merely the tuition of "ideology" is moot.

This is essentially the same as saying that humans aren't bipedal animals because some people are born with deformities. Why?

99.7% of the population feels comfortable presenting as their "assigned" gender Do you know this? Do you have access to every human mind in existence, and their acute conscious and subconscious sensitivities to certain societal pressures such as gender essentialism?

If you want I can discuss why you are wrong about gender and sex, and why using the two term synonymously is simply a result of our Abrahamic, Christian heritage (look overseas.. :1 2 3)