This study explores the intersection of gender, sociocultural background, and argumentative socioscientific writing. It focuses on Jewish Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men and women who were educated in gender-segregated schools separated from the public education (PE) system in Israel. We compared argumentative essays written by these two groups to argumentative essays written by both genders of PE graduates who studied in coed schools. The methodology and analysis were based on both the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, and relied on both preexisting ('top down') and data-derived ('bottom up') criteria to compare the argumentative essays of the four groups in 20 different aspects. The analysis revealed that gender differences in argumentation patterns and quality are culturally bound. While PE women and men share similar argumentative patterns and quality, in the Haredi group two distinct argumentative patterns and differences in quality were found. The findings demonstrate the complex intersections of gender, sociocultural background, and argumentation. We discuss these findings and present implications for research and teaching of argumentation and of socioscientific reasoning.