My (layman) take on gender is that as we understand it, it's a social cnstruct. The biological differences exist thanks to the need for children and the way our reproductive systems work. You have people with a vagina and people with a penis, and the outliers, who AFAIK aren't fit for reproduction. With only that biology, you can make babies.

Then comes the nurture part. My take on this is that children are to be raised as a community, not just by their parents. In a lot of societies the grandparents and other relatives for example had a significant role in raising children, and their growth wasn't to individualised. In that sense, you don't really need gender roles, and people more fit for certain tasks should do those certain task, for example more muscular people with vaginas could do so to say "a man's work".

Now that's been my like of thinking for a while, bit I'm starting to question it, since it's obvious that it's women who generally store more fat and produce milk, and are generally more suited for nurturing children. That is not to say that both the father and the community doesn't play a role, just that biological sex will generally strongly influence gender. I still stand by the idea that gender is a social construct in the form of a spectrum, and should be constantly challenged by those who wish to.

Any thoughts?