I think that is what the posts are suggesting is a possibility. And plenty of people posting here suggest that is the case on other threads all the time, so that hardly seems an unfair interpretation.
It is interesting that this experiment was used for so long as a proof for total social construction of gender. I remember reading this in textbooks as recently as the 1990s.
And it does seem to be exactly the point that a position critical of gender constructs makes - that without social construction unrelated to inherent sex differences, which are limited to only the most bare reproductive facts, there would be no gender as such.
It's often reduced to the "ladybrain" argument, that saying that there are biological or biologically rooted differences in male and female behaviour is making some kind of claims about brain structure that are not provable. The Gina Rippon position, or at least how people often seem to understand it, (perhaps she would not put it the same way.)
Which is a reductive argument, because of course differences are also about hormones and emergent behaviours related to reproductive role, and the differences of living in a different kind of body from metabolic differences to skeletal differences to hormonal differences. The brain is integrated with the body, not separate from it, housing the person like a computer in a box.
So the point is, that theory is misguided.
Practically, the conclusions about things like society and political policy that tend to come out of that theory are going to be ineffective or problematic. It would suggest for example that you can't likely engineer society to prevent the emergence of equity type differences between males and females.