That is not a scientifically minded claim. A phenomena not being noticed by many has nothing to do with its existence or not.this isn't actually all that complicated. People try to make it so (it's good copy, and it makes for endless topics for research papers in our Humanities Glut), but with a very, very few examples of those who are biologically ambiguous, gender is pretty straightforward.
If you bring up a vague topic like gender roles and don't specify any, it's completely logical for the opponent to refer to the most commonly cited instance. Stop being ridiculous. Only recently is that gender role not enforced extremely prominently. Birthing is not a gender role.Yes, and your response was foolish given that A) no one was talking about submission as a particular gender role any more than they were talking about wearing heels and B) in fact the most common gender role for females is not submission (which is actually a minority position in the US), but rather the birthing and primary care-giving for infants. Men have gender roles, as well, the most basic of which are ultimately (as with women) built off of their biology.
Broken clockSingle Example: The introduction of the plow into farming required additional upper-body strength for farmers, increased agricultural output, and disadvantaged attempts to farm while taking care of small children. The result was that the gender with greater upper body strength which was less necessary to the constant care of infants and small children became expected to spend all day behind the plow in order to increase agricultural output, while the gender that was most necessary to the constant care of infants and small children became expected to remain in the home where they could focus greater attention, time, and resources on raising children; each gender working together to enable successful reproduction through specialization within gender roles on the basis of their respective biological advantages and disadvantages.