The "novilanguage" of certain militants is so unfortunate that sometimes you have to force yourself to police the terms you use so as to mitigate the risk of you being misunderstood.
Who suffered most from this was the sentence of "social construction".
Social construction should be understood only as: societies developed to such an extent that they built certain elements in a certain way that they materialized.
This does not mean that this construction must necessarily be "deconstructed" or merely that it is the result of purely "subjective" issues. They aimed, they became practically as material as the concrete of our wall.
The average of rational people already associates "social construction" with a subjectivist and very low stigma of understanding things:
1) the "queer twitterer" about gender "just being a mere social construction",
2) those who want to impose quite unpopular changes in language since "the language is a mere social construction",
3) wanting to impose as norm forms of relationship necessarily plural and "open" since this is only a mere "social construction", etc.
And I even understand that fear.
Sometimes it is necessary to use terminologies such as "historical construction" or "socio-historical construction" to make it clear is not being made that a value judgment based on "enlightened moralism", nor that one is falling into stupid conceptions about "social constructions".
This is a bit of the power of liberal hegemony that, beyond the right, also moves towards the "left": sometimes it forces us to strive so that we are not victims of confusion, even in our own language!