Usually yes. But only because that's what we usually use. Our decision to usually use certain traits over others to sort things into categories we have defined is what makes sex a social construct.
Genetalia are biological, but the category of sex is still constructed by society. Basically, it's not things themselves that are socially constructed, it's the meanings we assign them, like having a penis meaning maleness.
But it actually does. I'm not really understanding where you're coming from on this.
Like a female hedgehog doesn't think it's sex is a social construct. It just knows it's female. Well, let me rephrase that - it may not KNOW but it is and instinctively knows it's the one opposite from the other and can find the other to mate.
There is an objective difference between having a penis and having a vagina. The categories of male and female reproductive organs exist outside of humans. However, we as humans have specific definitions of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. We use sexual organs as part of this definition, but also include chromosomes and hormones and other aspects as relevant traits making someone one sex or another. Thereby, we construct the categories of male and female around biological facts such as what sexual organs someone has and what chromosomes they have. So while sex exists outside of humans perception in some sense, when we talk about sex and call people male or female based on their traits we are using a socially constructed category. It's like the color spectrum- red is a different wavelength from yellow, but their status as different colors (when red and dark red aren't necessarily labeled as such) is a social construct.
Basically, we decide which traits matter and which don't when deciding what sex someone is. Some people define sex based only on the genitals someone has, some define it based on what chromosomes they have, some define it through a mix of both traits as well as others. What trait or traits sex is defined by is where sex becomes constructed.
Lol fair enough. Like I said in the take, this shit is super complicated. Basically, point is, the difference between a cup and a bowl is what we call it, not anything inherent about it. It's weird, and it gets even weirder with natural things, but that's basically how it works (as far as I can tell anyways)
Yep basically. Socially constructing something is basically the same as deciding what to call something, but with a little more category nonsense attached. Like deciding how many colors we have, when technically speaking there's infinite ones.
'' While my main motivator to write this take was to explain how I view sex and gender, this is a SUPER COMPLICATED ISSUE, and as such needs a lot of background on social constructs ''
No it is not complicated. there's men and women, period. While there are some feminine males and some masculine females, it still men and women. That simple and it has been that simple for millions of years.
So you didn't read the take then? What about intersex people? And don't say "oh they're the exception so they don't count" because that's not the point. I'm not arguing there's more variation in sex than there actually is, only that the categories for sex are to some degree arbitrarily defined and could be more fluid, but due to our construction of them are not. And if you're speaking of gender, you clearly don't understand that in the slightest either.
Believe it or not there is still some debate in the scientific community regarding whether race has no scientific basis. Some scientists, rely on differences in anatomy to provide an objective basis for race classification and do so with incredibly high accuracy. While it is true that one generally cannot rely exclusively on genetics or DNA samples to determine race, forensic anthropologists rely on skeletal differences to determine a persons race with a high degree of accuracy. However, that still doesn't mean one has to subscribe to race. Race may be a useful theoretical construct for this scientific discipline with an objective basis in reality without being "real".
I agree that a black person from Zambia might be very different from a black person from the US. The racial classification as used by forensic anthropologists are not as simplistic as "black" vs "white". That is a gross oversimplification of their position. You'll have to look up the pbs article "is race real" because I can't post links yet.
Also, thank you for providing that article that explicitly states that they opinion expressed in that article does not represent a consensus among anthropologists. To my original point, there is still disagreement among the community as to whether there is an objective standard that conforms to race categories. When you have something like 80% success rate you have to wonder how they are so successful when there's not much objectivity to it. My other point being that there can be an objective basis to a classification and it can still be a social construct. The two views are not mutually exclusive.
@greenman26 for someone to be a different race they would not fall under the category under homo sapiens. humans have a 1-2% difference in their genetic range dude. We may appear different, but we have not had enough time to become sub speices yet. Ideally that can take another 200,000-300,000 years. All the other varieties of the human race has been wiped out some 30,000 years ago from who know what
@FreedomByChoice You are completely confusing my point. There is one category called Homo sapiens (that refers to all of mankind) and under that classification you have difference races. That is a system of classification just like you can have different breeds of dogs all falling under the genus Canis (DNA also can't determine what breed a dog is but we don't claim there aren't different breeds). So what's your point? I never said that different races were different species lol. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
I guess I should qualify my statement as you can't use a dogs DNA with 100% accuracy, just like with humans because dogs share so much DNA in common. I spoke a little too hasty.
@greenman26 there is no variation or sub species of homo sapiens. its either you are a homo sapien, or you are not human as homo sapiens are the only known living humans left on this planet. Black people are homo spiens, whites are and so are Asians. Dogs have such variation because we have sped up their evolution but they are still the same race as far as geneticists are concerned. calling it a different race due to the appearances that a animal has is not a concrete way to go about it and anyone who does that is pretty much using 18th century Darwinism. we have not had enough time to actually breach off to a different ''race''. the modern term for race is basically a certain type of species, it has nothing to do with the outdated version of evolution that you keep using
@FreedomByChoice Dude... I'm sorry but I can't help you here. You are using words interchangeably that have very distinct meanings. First of all, you seem to think that being a different race would somehow require that people be different species. Nobody in the scientific community who uses the term race thinks they are referring to different species or sub species. Please educate yourself.
But yes, I agree with you 100% that all people are by definition homo sapiens.
@greenman26 actually, you need to educate yourself. Any evolutionist who agrees with the modern theory of evolution will tell you race is in fact a certain species. just because you are stuck in the 18th century does not mean the whole science community is there with you. Dont believe me? simply read the scientific journal on that matter
@FreedomByChoice I've gotta disagree on that one. As far as I'm aware, the typical standard used for determining species is whether two organisms can interbreed and create offspring without any issues. Unless there's some different definition being used?
''Even with no issues'' all species face a lot of problems when intermixing whether they are the same or not. I won't talk about tigers and lions mixing because usually they aren't fertile BUT I will talk about the fact that there were other human species that did in fact mix as there are traces of their dna in ours. There is more too it, if a species is really close to you such as a sub species then they sure can mix with little to no problem which is why there are now wolves mixed with domesticated dogs which are now being sold on the market at high rates. a lot of the time, they face no problem.
@FreedomByChoice Occasionally hybrids can be fertile, more often the females I think, though I'm not exactly an expert on this. That said, issues like those you bring up are demonstrations of why "species" isn't exactly a fantastically defined category. I'm not a expert on this field, so I'm not gonna claim to know the details of how species are differentiated, but as far as biology goes humans are currently all classified as the same species. You or others might take issue with that classification for some reason or another, but until the actual definition is changed that's how it is, because social constructionism and descriptivism and whatever.
you are actually getting me confused with greenman. My point never was to suggest that homo sapiens somehow fell under other categories. I implore you to read over this post again. Also, the female liger can only give birth if its a male lion most of the time. not a male tiger.
and besides that, the wolf and domesticated dog mixing was a great example as dogs have branched off from a wolf species that died out long ago yet are able to mix with modern day wolves and create hybrids with no fertility problems due to dogs being a sub species
@FreedomByChoice I don't think so? The only point I'm objecting to is that different races are different species, since as far as I'm aware the way species is defined/categorized it doesn't quite work that way. Is there some other meaning to the word species or something?
this is literally what you told me lol '' but as far as biology goes humans are currently all classified as the same species. You or others might take issue with that classification for some reason or another, ''
I never suggested anything close to saying we are different species. you may have saw my comment when I was talking about the other types of humans? I was basically talking about when there was a time when there were other species but went extinct 30,000 years ago. I know we are all homo sapien, then greenman had the opinion of using physical traits to label species which was basically 18th century Darwinism.
@FreedomByChoice I was initially responding to your statement "Any evolutionist who agrees with the modern theory of evolution will tell you race is in fact a certain species". Maybe I misunderstood your meaning because I was jumping in halfway through the discussion, but it sure seems like you're saying that different races are different species.
@FreedomByChoice Gotcha. Well even then I'm not sure I really agree, but that's more of a linguistics issue than a biology one. Basically, the way we use the word "race" is to mean those kinds of differences between humans, thus "race" is the term for those differences. There might also be an alternative meaning to the term which I am not aware of, but the meaning I thought you were using is still a correct one. That said, I haven't read the full argument so I dunno what meaning was the correct one to use in this context, but w/e.
This whole line of reasoning is totally ridiculous. FYI, every "social construct" that mankind has ever developed has served to artificially make women more equal to men. And still, most women will never be as manly as a below average beta male. You really are over thinking this issue...
If you think something being a social construct means it doesn't exist, you don't understand what a social construct is and need to go reread the take.
Also, in what way is making fun of disability even a funny joke? "Haha some people have mental trauma that causes them to have panic attacks at the mention of certain concepts". Yes, very funny, now go play outside with the other 13 year olds.
"Ooh look at me I'm making shoddily thought out satirical comments aren't I clever" Isn't it past your bedtime hon? Developing minds like yours need their rest after all.
Yes, because taking hormones and getting cosmetic surgery, not only that, but getting your junk chopped off or mutilated is "revealing" who you actually are.
Last time I checked, if you're female, you don't have to go through all this crap to look like it. Not only that, but once these people stop taking their hormones, they begin to revert. You don't revert if you're actually something.
Not to mention that these "females" don't get periods, they can't carry babies, they don't have breasts or vaginas. They have to get all of these added onto them. Nor do they have female chromosomes, bone morrow anything that makes a female a female. And the same thing applies to trans males. If someone were to take their DNA, it would come back as the DNA of the gender they actually are.
@lovelyhoneybones Altering one's appearance is not equivalent to altering one's gender. Additionally, why do you think that the appearance a person is born with is any more true to who they are in a non-physical sense than the appearance a person chooses?
Getting periods, carrying babies, and having breasts or vaginas are not what makes a person female. Or rather, they are a part of it, but they are not the sole determiners of female-ness. Or would you call women without uteruses or breasts (through genetic abnormalities or surgery) not women?
Again with abnormalities, they're lesser cases than NORMAL females. No, I would not classify a woman without a uterus as being a male. That makes no sense what so ever and that isn't even my argument. I also stated about DNA. These factors are apart of being a FEMALE. Something that dudes are not, nor will they ever be.
For example, take a black person who bleaches their skin to become white or light in color, are they no classified as a white person according to nature or their DNA? No, they are not. They are an individual who simply changed their outer appearance. If someone where to take a DNA sample, it would come back as African American or whatever they are. Same thing with their skeleton. If someone were to dig up their remains, they could identify them as African American by their bones. That's what would happen with a transgender. Their bones will just have been mutilated.
@lovelyhoneybones Why is normalicy relevant? And yes, those factors are a part of being female. The category "female" is made up of a great number of factors, and which specific factors are relevant and which are less so is not due to inherent biological truth, but rather due to how we as a society choose to define the category, which is why I say such a category is socially constructed.
And I think your issue is that you are using the genetic status of a person as the primary indicator of their category, be it race, sex, or gender. The problem is, there is more to those categories than just DNA or chromosomes.
Normalcy is actually VERY important when it comes to situations like this. You can't make a steady argument if you're using groups that are born with defects. I mean come on, they're recognized by the medical world as being not normal. You can't jump on my case about that.
The female category is made up of being a female. It's that simple. Anyone with common sense comprehends that a male is a male and a female is a female. My 6 year old cousin comprehends that and here I am, talking to a 19 year like she just got into the world.
If you want to get away from DNA and just debate about how you can tell a real woman from a transgender, we can do that all day. We don't even act a like. Females have feminine qualities that come from being a female. Transgender males don't even act like normal females, they always act like the ones who look fake and act fake... I wonder why.
@lovelyhoneybones You can make a steady argument. Why couldn't you? Red hair is an abnormality, yet no one claims that the "red head" category is less valid than the "black haired" category.
So why did you list child bearing and having a period as apparent indicators of femininity? And how exactly would you define female- how can you tell whether someone is female and not male?
Where does anything say that red hair is a trait to either gender? Red hair isn't even a trait restricted to one race. Many ethincites can have the red hair gene. Periods are not associated with males. Uteruses are not associated with males nor will they ever be. You're missing the point here. A lot of people can get red hair. Yes, it may be less of a chance than black hair, but the same applies with green eyes. Yet somehow I know more people with red hair and green eyes than I do people with black hair.
Not to mention that red hair and green eyes are more common than transgenders. And also are a natural occurrence.
@lovelyhoneybones It's called a comparison. My point is that red hair is an abnormality, yet I doubt you would discount it as an abnormality and thus not worthy of a distinct category, as you appear to be doing with intersex individuals.
Who's to say being transgender is not a natural occurrence, like a psychological form of being intersex?
That's an inaccurate comparison. Those two don't even compare. You're just making yourself look like an idiot trying to compare red hair to a uterus.
When it comes to human beings it isn't a natural occurrence. Just like my original comment on this post, if you have to change a bunch of stuff to be "who you are", you're not who you are. Especially if you're taking something that you need for the rest of your life because the moment you stop taking it, you revert back to your natural form with some downsides and permanent damage.
@lovelyhoneybones Are you really this thickheaded? The point is the categories constructed around them, and whether normalicy is relevant when considering constructed categories or not.
Anyone with common sense knows that. You don't need to become a chick if you're already a chick. You don't need to become a dude if you're already a dude. A natural occurrence is something that happens naturally.
@lovelyhoneybones Yes, you are. I recognize the difference between one's natural form and one's modified form, I simply do not see the relevance, and you have as of yet failed to explain it properly.
@lovelyhoneybones The issue is that your definitions as to what constitutes "male" or "female" are inaccurate. Again, DNA or chromosomes are not the sole determiner of either sex or race or really any of the categories we have mentioned, which is something you appear incapable of understanding.
No, no. It is an answer to your question. You asked how natural occurrences have anything to do with this, you asked me and I answered. It has everything to do with this. Because if something is not backed by nature, you can not sit here and try to argue that it's normal. Science is backed by nature. Scientists base their studies off of nature and what occurs naturally. Transgender human beings are not natural.
We. Are. Talking. About. Human. Beings. Not man made inventions.
Something that is naturally occurring exists by nature. Transgender human beings do not exist by nature. They are not born that way. They make themselves that way.
@lovelyhoneybones No, we are talking about what is normal. And religion is something that human beings have. And are you talking about what is normal or what is natural? And once again, why does what is natural have any bearing on what is or isn't a social construct? And how do you know transgender people aren't born that way? You are aware that having gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy aren't required for being transgender?
I said MAN made. Religion falls under that. Refrigerators fall under that. I said and YOU said something that is naturally occurring, don't try to back track because all you have to do is scroll back up. Transgenders are not born modified. They're normal human beings born with either of the two genders who later on in life decide that they are not happy with who they are.
@lovelyhoneybones Again, being "modified" is not what defines being transgender. Transgender people can be wholly unaltered by any medication or surgery whatsoever and still be transgender. Many simply choose to modify themselves to fit more precisely into the socially constructed category of the gender they identify as, much as many women choose to wear dresses to be more feminine.
That still isn't naturally occurring. Most transgenders don't even get these thoughts or feelings until after a certain age. Or if they're teenagers trying to be "different".
@lovelyhoneybones Source? Based on what I've read, many transgender people know they're transgender relatively early on. Even so, how would that prove its not naturally occurring? Depression and various psychological issues can be genetically passed on, but don't necessarily manifest until past puberty.
And you want to know why? It's called hormones. Also depression is linked to the frontal lobe. If you have a child claiming they're misgendered, that's bull. A child is a child. They're brain isn't even half way developed yet. People don't even take 18 year olds for their word, yet you're going to believe a 3 year old knows they're not the right gender? When I was 4 I recall wanting to be a boy. Why? Because all I had was male cousins and I had a new baby brother. Everyone around me was male. After a while, that went away. It's called kids being kids.
@lovelyhoneybones being transgender is linked to differences in the brain. And so you're saying that children cannot understand their gender and thus cannot be trusted if they say they are transgender, yet the supposed fact that children do not know they are transgender until later proves that being transgender has no biological basis? Convenient how both options support your worldview, and very telling.
I read about this woman who's convinced herself she needs a wheelchair even though her legs are perfectly fine, it's just that some of her brain channels that fire neurons or something like that are out of whack, and I think it might be the same with transgender people. I think they have brain neurons telling them they're one gender when they're really the other. I don't think it's natural to want to change your gender. If you are born a boy, that's what you are, in my opinion; if you want to change it, I don't think it's because you are actually the other gender, but that your brain chemicals are unbalanced.
They have found that the brains of transgender people tend to resemble the gender they identify as more closely than that they were assigned at birth. In my opinion, since gender is entirely behavioral/social anyways, it doesn't really matter why someone has the gender they do, only that they do. The woman in a wheelchair is still handicapped, regardless of whether the issue lies with her mind or with her body. Similarly, transgender people are still the gender they identify as, even if the cause of their transgenderism is some mutation in the brain.
I explained why this is untrue. Again, genders are a socially defined category which are descriptions for the particular behavioral patterns people have, which are categorized as "male" or "female" by society in the same way certain beliefs are ascribed as "liberal" or "conservative". People are more and more commonly deciding that more options should be available, thus creating/defining more genders, similar to how new genres of music or other media are created.
So, basically, because scientific facts hurt people's precious little feeling, we shall say "Fuck science" and create some fake genders so that people who can't face reality feel better?
No? Gender is simply not the same thing as sex. Gender is our way of socially categorizing people based on their behaviors and interests, and though our genders are modeled around our sexes, sex and gender are still distinct concepts.
The definition of gender has always be "a category such as "male" or "female" into which sexually-reproducing organisms are divided on the basis of their reproductive roles in their species". That's only because SJW started crying over nothing that people think that gender is different from sex. Basically, dumb people thought there were smart and actually soiled the English language because they didn't want to hurt the queers' precious little feelings.
No, it has not. Plenty of cultures throughout history have had the concept of non-binary genders and transgender people. That may be your definition and the definition you prefer, but it is not the one that has always existed, nor is it the one that exists currently in academia. I know it's very pleasant to believe your personal views are the objectively true ones, but sadly the world does not revolve around you.
Prove me that some cultures actually had this concept of "non-binary genders and transgender people". The only historical concept about these people was slaughter. Also, the definition is from a dictionary, not from my "personal views".
To be honest, I only read the first paragraph and I stopped because the logic was already flawed...
And what dictionary are you using? Most I've found define gender as largely social rather than biological, and I can't even find the definition you're using.
Also, if you haven't read my argument, why do you think you're qualified to rebut it? I don't really care how flawed you think my logic is, if you haven't actually read what I said you have no right to speak on it.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gender I don't bother wasting my time with researching about "third genders". It's like doing research about god or religion, nothing is based on facts or proofs. It's just "Oh, some people think like that". To quote the article "However, the state of personally identifying as, or being identified by society as, a man, a woman, or other, is usually also defined by the individual's gender identity and gender role in the particular culture in which they live. Not all cultures have strictly defined gender roles." : only gender roles and gender identity define the "third gender", not actual gender itself. Why? Because gender is male or female. "Third gender" is a social construct, gender itself is not.
Also, I didn't bother reading your whole argument because a building with clay foundation is worthless, just like an argument with a flawed first point.
So you demand proof, then discount said proof as soon as it is provided? Very convenient. Also, the article you provided lists other definitions of gender along with the usage synonymous with sex, and actually notes that the usage you used is one of the more controversial ones.
And you seem to be misreading the article on third genders. In fact, the very second sentence of the article refers to those third genders as genders, rather than only gender identities or gender roles.
Also "At the same time, feminists began to draw a distinction between (biological) sex and (social/psychological) gender." : Hey, look who it is! The feminists! Don't they stuff more important to do like actually defend women's right in the Middle East?
Just because I'm thinking I'm a pretty butterfly doesn't mean it's a gender and everyone has to recognize me as a pretty butterfly. A person who seriously thinks that would be the right thing should probably see a psychiatrist. I don't even see the need to categorize these people as a gender. It's like creating new genders just based on a random personality factor.
Wow was that an argument? Bc it just looks like a whole lot of nonsense irrelevant to any of the points I made. If you want to have a serious discussion, you're gonna have to learn to stay on topic sweetie, you can't just say things and pretend they're a counterargument when they're nothing of the sort.
Also, since you seem so educated on the non-binary subject, what are the other genders? And also, why transgenders only go from male to femal or female to male if there are more than 2 genders?
The other genders are whatever they are defined as being. I would even say that different societies ideas of male/femaleness could qualify as different genders, if one society has an expectation of maleness different enough from the expectations of another society. That gets a bit complicated though, as it creates a question of whether categories labeled the same but defined differently are different categories or no.
And transgender people don't just go from male to female and vice versa, plenty identify as non-binary, thus why such identities exist as a concept.
So, you're saying that gender depends completely on how someone feels or identifies as? So would it be possible to change gender whatever you want, be a new gender every day?
Sorta. I'm saying gender as a concept changes based on how people are categorized. What gender people themselves are depends on their personality/interests/those kinds of traits, like how what political leaning people are depends on their beliefs. So it does essentially rely on people to identify themselves, but only because only the person themself can judge what category their interests/personality best match. As for changing gender, it's no easier to change gender than to change your personality, which isn't really something that can be done at will.
So basically gender is personality trait? What's the point of using the word gender if it's only a personality trait. And it's so far from the original definition too. So, how is gender a social construct if it's different for everyone? I'm really confused there...
Not so much personality trait as personality descriptor I'd say. Or really, descriptor of how people function in society based on their personality and interests. And what original definition exactly?
And it's a social construct because it's a category/concept labeled by society.
I really don't understand the point of linking gender and feeling. Gender is, in my opinion, more closely related to sex than to feelings. I don't see how you could identify as something other than male and female. Feel free to explain me, but it doesn't sound sensible to me.
The term "gender", as currently used in most academia, refers to the social categorization of people. This social categorization is modeled off of sex, so sex and gender are related, but gender is the social expectations/roles we have for people, who are sorted into one category or the other based on how well they fit those expectations and roles. These expectations and roles make up our gender categories, much like different political parties make up political categories for us. The categories of "male" and "female" are the most well known and well used categories, but some people find that they do not fit well in either category, and thus create new ones, like how third parties are created by people who don't find they fit in the roles of "democrat" or "republican".
It seems that too many things are put behind the word gender that are completely unrelated (the same goes with racism). Guess that's just how modern people think, put every excuse possible to victimize some people so that they can do their virtue signaling. It still doesn't make sense to me. Politics views are linked to nothing, gender is linked to your crotch and your chromosomes.
Again, genetalia and chromosomes is what we use "sex" to refer to. However, it is also useful to us to have a term to refer to the social roles/categories surrounding sex, which is what we use the term "gender" for.
Yeah but gender is still tied to sex. What you're trying to explain me sounds like gender is independant from sex.
In my opinion, people tend to regroup social and personality traits behind gender, which doesn't make any sense, hence the multiple combinations (other genders). That regrouping seems like a flawed logic to me.
Not at all. As I said in the take, gender is tied to sex similarly to how political parties are tied to political affiliations. The thing about gender is just that it doesn't refer to anything physical/objective, but rather a set of social norms/categories based on something physical/objective. Despite the existing social norms being based largely on that physical/objective thing, they are still independent of it, and can even vary between different societies. Like if one culture considers oak wood as chair building wood and one considers it to be house building wood. Both cultures are basing their roles off of the same physical material, but those roles are distinct.
I found this definition and fits my ideas well :"the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).". You're still talking about the sexes, but on a social/cultural topic instead of biological.
Eeh. I don't read that definition the same way I think. To me, it means gender is usually used to refer to male and female in the non-sex sense, since male and female with regards to sex would be "biological differences", which that definition says are usually not what is meant.
So much shit has been put behind all sorts of words, yet we understand them just fine. We even have modern words that used to mean something utterly different in the past, but changed meaning over time. Besides, the only way to make people understand it better is to continue using it in the way you want people to understand, that's how words work.
No, just because I decide the word "jelly" to designate someone smart doesn't mean that suddenly this definition should be accepted. If you start piling up definitions (sometimes contradictory ones) behind a single word, you're only gonna confuse people and people will stop using that word.
No, it doesn't. But if other people pick that change in terminology up and it becomes well known enough for people to commonly use it and understand it, then that does mean it's correct. That's how "literally" changed such that it can also be used figuratively nowadays.
And people definitely don't stop using the word. People in England still use the word "chuffed", or at least understand it, despite the word meaning both happy and annoyed. Same with the word "peruse", which means both to skim and to read thoroughly. This is why context is such a major part of language.
The litterally part is basically an "urban" definition, not an official one. Here again, it's the result of poorly worded people thinking they look smart using words they don't know. Again, their stupidity and/or lack of knowledge soils the language.
It is an official definition, it's in the dictionary. And it's not "soiling" the language, it's a natural part of how language changes. Ask any linguist buddy. This is called the prescriptivism/descriptivism issue, prescriptivism being the view that grammar is a set of rules for language to operate by, and descriptivism being the view that it is a description for how language is used. Most American linguists agree with descriptivism, aka not you.
I'm not talking really about the linguistic part, I think it's not efficient to put multiple meanings behind a single words just because many uneducated people decided to do so.
Well you may think it's not efficient, but it is how language works. If you want to build your own perfectly efficient language, go for it, but know that it probably won't be used by anyone other than yourself. Plenty of people have tried to come up with better languages, but very few of them have caught on.
Using the ones we have properly means accepting that some words have multiple meanings, even conflicting ones. You may not like those conflicting meanings, but they are still part of our language.
Yes but adding more of these meanings is just stupid. It's like someone created a software just to note appointement, and suddenly a person decides to use it to do something else and then plenty other persons find other uses. In the end, you're like "What is its actual use? What is this supposed to be?"
It's not stupid, it's how language naturally operates. Again, if you don't like it you can go create your own language, or learn one with no homonyms whatsoever, if such a one exists.
I hat how many people like you seem to tolerate human stupidity and lack of knowledge. We have words for almost everything and yet people have to misused them or soil them. A language is a set of rules. Constantly changing these rules is just pointless, just like constantly changing the rules of a game.
Again, it isn't stupidity or anything of the sort, it's just how language works. As for the rules of language, that's prescriptivism/descriptivism again. Under descriptivism, the system most English linguists agree with, the rules of language are merely a description of how language is used. In any case, learn to speak French if you hate language "impurity" so much, I hear the French are pretty elitist about their language. But if you're gonna be speaking English, no amount of fussing is going to change how English operates.
I am French... I'm sorry, but wanting to change something that already works well is stupidity to me. You can put all the fancy terms you want, it's still stupidity to my eyes.
Lmao well that explains it. And you can think it's stupid, that's your opinion. Personally I think the French's obsession with language purity is kinda stupid. But neither way is really objectively better, so who cares. All we can do is accept that certain languages work one way or another, and that no amount of bitching is gonna change that.
Did you read the take? Just because it has a genetic definition doesn't make it not a social construct. There are other definitions, and other factors, and which ones we use is arbitrary and socially determined.
The purpose of life at its most basic from cells to fish to us is to live to reproduce and further the species to the next generation (where in change or abnormalities happen). unlike bacteria and some other animals we as mammals and humans further our species by separating out specious into two different sexes to lower inbreeding and increase our ability to reproduce. Unfortunately inter-sex people are not a seprate sex or evolving separately into a new species but an unfortunate mutation like having an extra toe or webbed feet. Some mutations are beneficial and make a species better like longer hair, bigger heads for bigger brain capacity, other like webbed feet do nothing, and lastly some even hurt us like being born without arms.
I feel bad saying this but the male-female system IS perfect based on our reproductive system but not everyone is born perfect.
We didn't make the system we just named it like how we named the celestial body we orbit the sun.
A mutation being evolutionary unhelpful doesn't make it less relevant or less legitimate. Additionally, being intersex isn't even necessarily a hindrance evolutionary, it's just that it tends to be less common than being male or female, and as such a single vague category is made for all intersex people, when it would be just as valid to have distinct sexes for different types of intersex people.
I never said we made the system. See the distinction between wholly man made social constructs and natural ones. Basically, whole we didn't make the system, we made the categories we use to define and describe the system, categories which may be imperfect or biased.
A mutation also doesn't make it a separate category in and of itself as a. Making new sexes for intersex people would be as you described a man made imperfect or biased category.
I disagree cancer mutations even common like skin cancer are not a trait but a disease. There are many common problems that happen at birth both mentally and physically which are not.
Having a genetic predisposition toward cancer would be a trait. If there were a species where most or all of its members tended to get cancer, that would be a trait of the species.
It's not that I didn't like it, it's that what he's saying really doesn't counter any of my points. Most humans being heterosexual has no bearing on whether gender is a social construct or not.
@Listening5 Gender is most definitely a social construct, in that people assume that I'm a lesbian/into women and not men because I don't act "like a woman", I don't dress "like a woman", and I'm not into "girly" things.
Serious question: how the hell are TREES a social construct when they exists without human intervention, have existed since before we did, and are crucial to our own survival in providing oxygen?
@dragonfly6516 I explained in the take. Something being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of society, only that the way we categorize it is socially constructed. So it's not so much that trees themselves are social constructs as that the difference between a tree and a bush is.
Well, technically the classification of flora falls under certain standards of scientific study; but even then, you're still correct in the social constructs of those scientists charged with the task of classifying affecting the outcome.
Either way, the statement, "Trees are social constructs" is still false, because it is only their classification, and not the trees themselves. Tomato, tomatto. I do understand what you meant, and I agree with what you were trying to say.
@dragonfly6516 Yes, I realize that the trees themselves are not the social construct. That said, I couldn't find a better way to express the idea that the concept of "tree" is socially constructed, despite the material object that the word "tree" refers to not being such. I hoped that would be clear through the rest of my explanation.
Its not social construct its how things are intended to be, its how we are as humans are wired, its nature doing its job , we just gave it a name, green, red and blue are colors they have been there since forever but we just gave them a name we named them with different names to distinguish between them it doesn't mean we created them we simply discovered that they exist and gave them a name to make life easier for us when we want to describe said color.
and so is gender, i as a guy have a set of traits that you as a girl dont have no matter how hard you try to mimic me , its natural its not social construct, law is social construct so is a driving test or an exam to get into a good college, yes we made those things up but men a women? we didn't make them we simply gave names to what they do and how the act, there is a reason in African tribes men are the hunters and women cook and take care of the kids and its not social construct.
Did you not read my take? Social construct doesn't mean made up, it means that the thing has been given meaning/categorized by us. Those things are colors, but the fact that we categorize them as different colors, and where the boundaries between them lie, is socially constructed. In naming the colors, we separate them from each other arbitrarily. It's like if I took all plants and divided them into the categories "tall plants" and "short plants" with no other categories. I'm not changing what the plants are, but I am creating arbitrary categories for them, thus "tall plants" and "short plants" would be socially constructed in that I use those categories instead of others.
you're implying that we created these things and gave them their properties which is not right at all all we did was make life easier for us but we did not change anything nor made things up, gender has been there since the begging of time all we did is say " what if give it a name so we know what the hell we are talking about" thats all, you can't be half man half woman, you can't be a unicorn... etc
No, I am not. You clearly need to read the take, right now you're just assuming you understand what it's about and constructing strawman arguments based on that.
You call what you tried to argue positions? Profligate. You knew better than to give reference on scientific evidence for this trash you composed. Then you even have the gal to say my opinions are meaningless...
by the way, you're definitely not 19, you're 30+ over the hill. I can see from your picture.
Why do I need to read it? I've seen your exact arguments hundreds of times over on liberal websites and even had the displeasure of having this shoved down my throat at my university. Hell, I've even had a girl tell me if I wasn't liberal like her and believed in all this trash she'd never speak to me again.
I've also picked apart this little argument with real biological and anthropological references. You KNOW you're wrong, I don't even need to argue you. We both know you're wrong lmao.
Now what tf does "philosophy" have to do with trying to prove that there are 60+ genders? 🤔
With you being a radical third wave feminist and lgbt warrior, I expected you to be stupid, but what you just said doesn't add up. Sociology? Fine. Philosophy? Lol.
This "issue" is completely scientific. But of course you'd try to escape that fact because science demolishes any argument you want to bring up about the existence of 'half demi-trans megafemales' or whatever other "gender" you pull out of thin air.
Philosophical in that I would argue that the social constructionism view of the world is a type of philosophy.
I didn't say the issue wasn't scientific, only that it wasn't the kind of science you seem to think. Gender is not a biological category, it is a psychological and sociological one, at least the way the term "gender" currently tends to be used in academia.
Wrong. The way "gender" tends to be used in academia (meaning liberal platforms like the modern university/college) fine, that's how "gender" is referred.
But what gender truly is, is completely biological. Now you can play radical feminist all you want, but you KNOW that is the truth, and you KNOW what you stand for is intellectually dishonest. But for some odd sexual perversion you might have, you want to validate yourself with a complete lie (maybe you like watching trans porn or some shit I have no fucking clue).
That's not what gender "truly is" that's how you define gender. Ask pretty much any of the major psychological associations. Even the one that literally publishes the book on mental illness defines gender that way.
Letting slide the laughable statement you said about mental illness books describing gender the way you define it...
Yes I'm completely aware of the nonsense that is pushed down your throat at these universities, and the statements made from modern liberal psychologists such as "you're born gay", "gender is a spectrum", and "there are over 60 genders". I've seen it all. But at the end of the day none of those statements are grounded in scientific studies/research but rather in assumptions and liberal opinions.
Basic biology still trumps everything you put down on your take, there are TWO genders, that is a biological fact. All the 60+ other genders you invent, now those are what are social constructs, and you have NO way of proving otherwise.
You need to work on your reading skills. It's not that the book on mental illness defines gender that way, it's that the psycholgicial organization that publishes that book does.
And sex is biological, gender is not. Gender is the term for the social roles societies construct which are based party on sex, but are not dependent upon it.
Wrong again, the only who needs to work on their reading skills is YOU. Gender inherent with the sex you are born with, it cannot be constructed or assigned. Do you even understand what gender is? Biologically speaking sex and gender are corresponding terms.
Gender splits the general roles and responsibilities between the two sexes according to what each sex can accomplish more efficiently, that is inherent, and that is a FACT. From the beginning of time, even before civilized societies began, there has also TWO distinctive roles/responsibilities for each sex.
Gender and their distinctive roles are even present throughout ALL types of species on our planet. How can gender possibly be a "social construct" if it's present even in the least intelligent animals such as horses and pigs who will live in the wild without civilized societies? How uncivilized unsophisticated species in the animal kingdom socially construct genders, let alone socially construct anything? 🤔
That was a question that remains unanswered by the most liberal scientists out there and your psychological organizations who make these gender statements.
Who told wild dogs to form two distinct set of general roles and responsibilities for only the TWO biological sexes? 🤔
I honestly want to see you answer this Q. Hold on. Let me guess... The patriarchy?
Gender is largely only synonymous to sex in the colloquial sense. I am not using the colloquial definition of gender, but rather the one commonly used in academia, where gender is a way of referring to the social roles surrounding sex. Do you have trouble understanding that words can have more than one correct usage or something?
As for the "two sexes" thing, I addressed that in my take. Other sexes occur (intersex people) but are largely classified as "disorders" because they are rare because they don't provide much of an evolutionary advantage.
I expect you to be ridiculously absurd but wtf are you talking about? I couldn't care less what sense you want to take for gender and I care just a little about how gender is used in modern academia.
There is only ONE description as to what gender is and that is present throughout all forms of life on this entire planet since the beginning of time. Gender isn't a "social construct", it's inherent with your biological sex.
As for the intersex nonsense you tried to pull to save yourself, these people suffer from genetic abberations, the very same way a child with down syndrome does. I know you were trying to imply that these people can simply choose/switch their gender at their convenience, but these people still the have biological, psychological, hormonal, physical, difference that either make them man or woman. Plus, there are no documented cases of an individual where both testes and ovarian tissue were functional. One is complete and the other is incomplete. Nice try.
Buddy, you can stick to your own personal definition as much as you want, but that doesn't make it any more right. The term gender means what the term gender means, and no amount of whining is going to change that.
Buddy, learn to read. I'm not going to bother myself with a counterargument to an argument that's not my own.
Not only is it disgusting of you to use people born with genetic malfunctions, but I will NOT let you disregarding the question I asked you (which is NOT answered anywhere in your take).
Who told wild male dog to be protective of his territory? who told the male peacock to use their hued plumes in attempts to attract females? who told female lions to go hunt? Why are there distinct set of general roles and responsibilities for only the TWO biological sexes? 🤔 Who is the one creating all these "social constructs"...
You still don't know what social construct even means, huh? You're still arguing against a position that isn't mine. You've basically created a fake me with inaccurate views to have an argument with. So like have fun debating with your imaginary friend if you like, but leave me out of it.
Please quote my exact words on where I used my own personal definition as to what gender means? I'll fucking wait... Your position is that gender is a social construct and that's WRONG. My position is that there are only TWO genders, all the other gender you believe exist are what are "social constructs".
I used the exact scientific definition as what gender means and what gender is. No one "socially constructed" gender. Male and females have genetic, biological, psychological, hormonal, physical, difference that either make them male or female. And gender gives distinct general roles and responsibilities and standards between the two sexes according to what each sex can accomplish efficiently, therefore making gender directly correspondent to your biological sex.
What I said is biological fact and has existed since the beginning of time. Men and women have always distinct standards which evolved into modern gender roles and standards and even symbols (ex: blue and pink).
I've proven your position which is based on liberal indoctrination rather than factual evidence to be wrong. Proving your point to be right is contingent on answering my question. If you cannot answer my question then there is no point in continuing with you.
My question: There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the TWO biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"? 🤔
"There is only ONE description as to what gender is and that is present throughout all forms of life on this entire planet since the beginning of time. Gender isn't a "social construct", it's inherent with your biological sex."
Definition of gender: "Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female." Aka there is not only one definition of gender, and the current typical usage of gender tends to be more social than biological.
And you haven't proven my position to be anything, since you don't understand my position. Rather, you have made arguments about a position which isn't mine, because evidently the only kind of argument you can win is one against a fictional person.
As I explained in my take, even objectively real physical objects can have social constructs created around them. The concept "tree" is a social construct, even if trees physically exist.
@cipher42 Why are you even bothering with this guy? Either he's a troll or he's just ignorant and he's going to keep spewing hate out of his mouth because he can be anonymous on the internet and his mom never taught him how to treat people with respect. Plus, I think his name and profile picture tells us everything we need to know about this guy.
You try to save yourself again but you dig yourself in a deeper hole than before. The dictionary definition clearly states that gender is the state of being either male or female, and then explains how it is typically used.
You can say I'm not really arguing your position, but you're position is that gender is a "social construct" and that's exactly what I'm picking apart. What you say does nothing advance your position.
Especially that tree garbage you just said. How the concept of tree be a "social construct" if the concept of tree and the tree has always existed? We simply learned to understand it. Concepts such as 'Time' are a social construct, but things that have existed before we even gave meaning to them are not constructed by society. You make absolutely ZERO fucking sense.
And this is the last time I'm going to ask you this question. If you cannot answer it then simply let me know and I'll understand you have zero basis whatsoever to base your personal beliefs on.
My question: There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the TWO biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"? 🤔
Wow you really can't read, huh? "The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
And you aren't arguing with my position about gender being a social construct either, because you don't understand what "social construct" means the way I'm using it. You are once again using a different definition from me and assuming that makes you right, like people saying the theory of evolution isn't reliable because it's a "theory", when "theory" in science means something completely different from what it does colloquially. That's the answer to your question. Those things can be social constructs because all concepts are socially constructed, regardless of whether or not those concepts represent objective truths or not.
Again, I honestly couldn't care less about what way you're using social construct. That phrase has one meaning and that is the definition I speak when I say "social construct".
If you're going to started inventing you're own meaning to it, then let me know and I'll let you make up all the definitions along with all the genders you want.
"Those things can be social constructs because all concepts are socially constructed" That right there is liberal feminist insanity at it's finest, and you've failed to prove otherwise. Believe this all you want, but that's the furthest from accurate you can possibly be.
On top of failing to prove your position, you're starting to make me go in circles now, and I've repeated myself and asked you the same question (that you have been unable to answer) multiple times now.
You even tried to use genetic malfunctions to save your argument and now I see you're bringing up the theory of evolution? You're out breath, I'm done with you. Until you reply an answer to my question, I won't entertain your delusions any further.
(Last chance) My question: There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the Two biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"? 🤔
That definition doesn't contradict my usage. The category of "sex" and the perception thereof are still culturally created. Just like the category "tree" or the category "rock". Go look up social constructionism and read the wikipedia article, it explains the concept the same way I do. Quick snippet for you " Consider a hypothetical claim that quarks are "socially constructed". On one reading, this means that quarks themselves are not "inevitable" or "determined by the nature of things." On another reading, this means that our idea (or conceptualization, or understanding) of quarks is not "inevitable" or "determined by the nature of things"." You are using the first reading, I am using the second. The fact that you cannot distinguish the two readings is a fault of your own capacity for understanding, and is causing you to misunderstand my argument rather badly.
Now you want to talk about trees and rocks and quarks? 😂 Where is the answer to my question? Ms. Amateur Biologist, you said "Gender is a Social Construct"didn't you? Then prove it.
There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the two biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"?
How can a concept be a social construct if it was never "constructed" to be begin with and existed without the need of sophisticated intelligence? 🤔
Quarks have existed longer than gender, yet quarks are a social construct. Gender is far more variable than quarks or rocks, and far more dependent on cultural whims (pink being girly, women wearing dresses). Look, if you refuse to understand this concept then I can't help you. I've explained several times now that social constructs are not the physical objects but rather our understanding of them, but you seem to be incapable of understanding that, and thus you keep repeating the same tired old argument over and over.
Not that you're right about quarks existing longer than gender, but that what difference does it make? That doesn't answer my Q. And not that the examples you stated are cultural whims, but gender doesn't depend on "cultural whims" it's depended on your biological sex.
Back on the topic, the only tired old argument is the nonsense you spewing without being able to back it up. You can explain "social constructs are not the physical objects but rather our understanding of them" but that doesn't it make it true. Hell, that's not even what social construct mean. I keep asking the same Qs because you avoid answering it and I'm not going to let that happen.
Everything you're saying about gender, social constructs, and concepts are all personal liberal opinions rather than factual, therefore I'm going to refuse accepting it until you can make your position intellectually accurate (judging by the comments nobody else will as well). I want an answer to my question. Answer the question!
That is what social construct means. Again, go read the wikipedia page. We're back to you wanting to believe that your own personal definition of something must be the only correct one. I'm sorry you don't want things to be defined in a way that makes you wrong, but as it happens the world doesn't revolve around you, and you are not the supreme arbiter of the English language.
Again you'e making me repeat myself. Please quote my exact words on where I used my own personal definition as to what social construct means? I'll wait..
The only one with personal definitions here is YOU. Ask me to explain anything on gender not being a social construct and I will do so. I ask you ONE question and you are unable to answer. Use that garbage you just told me on yourself and answer my question.
There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the two biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence, be a "social construct"?
You keep using social construct as if it means something entirely invented by society. It doesn't. It means a concept or category invented by society, even if that concept reflects the physical world, as with the concept "rock" referring to physical rocks. If you have read the wikipedia page, you clearly don't understand it, as it makes that quite clear. Thus, when discussing social constructs, it is not the physical thing itself that we are discussing (for instance actual physical sex) but rather the way society defines/categorizes that thing (so how we decide what defines a sex, and the concept of "sex").
The argument for social constructionism is really just that the way we percieve and categorize the world is influenced by society. That the reason a palm tree is considered a tree is not because of something inherent about it, but rather that we call it a tree and therefor it is one. Can you tell me why you don't think that is the case?
That is literally what social construct means. The garbage you're talking about isn't on any definition for "social construct" you can possibly find. Anywhere. You are WRONG. And you've failed to prove otherwise.
Many things such as time to measuring quantities and mathematical equations are social constructs, since the possibility to find different ways to read time and study math/science exists. Physical things that are already there cannot be socially constructed because they're already there. Rock remains rock and (hard in quality) regardless of our understanding of it. By your logic, if society decides today a rock must be soft and malleable like mud, then that's what a rock magically becomes? That's beyond absurd.
You can decide there are 60+ genders and that you can pick and chose your gender at your convenience today, but that doesn't change the fact that there are only TWO genders, and all the other genders you socially constructed are what you call "social constructs".
The reason I disagree with what you said about a palm tree is because what a palm tree is doesn't depend on our understanding of it. Palm tree = An unbranched evergreen tree with a crown of long feathered or fan-shaped leaves.
We can change the name to something but all that does is change the name we give it, it remains an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves. We can decide a palm tree is a pine tree and a pine tree is a palm tree, but all that does is relocate the definition, an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves remains an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves. It doesn't matter what concept we place on it.
If we decide today that an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves is just a social constructs, the same way liberal society did with gender, and we say and evergreen leaf with fan-shaped leaves is really a coniferous plant with thorns, that's WRONG and that doesn't change that an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves remains exactly as it is.
What I said: "a concept or category invented by society, even if that concept reflects the physical world" What your definition said: "a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice"
The concept of "rock" is a social construct, because what physical objects we call rocks is a social construct. And yes, if society decides that the term "rock" means something squishy, then that's what "rock" means, it just that the term no longer refers to the objects previously referred to as rocks.
How about another example? Planets. Pluto used to be a planet, now it's not. It's not that anything about Pluto changed, nor that planets in general changed, but that our definition for planet did.
Are your reading skills legitimately this bad? I must have stated at least five times by now that "social construct" doesn't refer to the physical object itself, but to the category we place that object in, a category which we define the definition to. Planets are a social construct because we define what a planet is, thus why things which were once planets can become something else.
The physical objects we call rocks remain what they are regardless of what we call them. Rock = Solid mineral. We can decide a rock is play doh (squishy) and play doh is rock, all that does is relocate the definition for rock, that doesn't magically change a solid mineral to a soft solid.
The reason Pluto is no longer a "planet" is because of astronomical scientific advancement that help us understand what is a planet and what is not. Therefore we do not *define* what a planet is, that's absurd, we *learn* to understand what is a planet and what is not with astronomical advancement.
Today we understand Pluto is a "dwarf planet" since it lacks certain criteria all other "planets" have (https://www. nasa. gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-pluto-k4. html)
What is your definition exactly? Put it in your own words.
The reason Pluto is no longer a planet is because we changed what "planet" means to exclude Pluto, because we had to choose between excluding Pluto and including a bunch of other celestial bodies. We literally changed the definition of planet, look it up.
Unlike you I don't make personal definitions on things that already exist. Social Construct is exactly what any textbook dictionary definition describes it to be.
& You're wrong about Pluto, despite me giving you a link from the organisation that makes these classifications themselves. Nobody changed what "planet" means to exclude Pluto, because pluto is classified as a "dwarf planet": * www.nasa.gov/.../what-is-pluto-k4.html
Just as I explained with your example for rock. What makes something a planet has never changed, we simply learn to understand what is a planet and what isn't. * https://www.space.com/25986-planet-definition.html
For ex: At one point it was thought that the moon was a planet. Further research on planets helped us to learn what is a moon (the natural satellite of a planet) and understanding that planets orbit around the sun and what orbits around planets are moons.
So you don't actually know what a social construct is, you just think the way I'm using it isn't wholly accurate. Honey, if you don't understand the concept, how can you think I'm wrong about it? And if you do understand the concept, you should be able to put it into your own words so I can understand where your understanding of it differs from my own.
There was no such thing as a dwarf planet prior to 2006. The term was created when the definition for planet was changed to exclude Pluto.
Even the article you cited says the definition was changed. "While many people can point to a picture of Jupiter or Saturn and call it a "planet," the definition of this word is much more subtle and has changed over time. Many astronomers decided on a new definition in 2006 after the discovery of several worlds at the fringes of the solar system"
I'm not thinking anything, you are wrong about the way you're using "social construct". Social construct = A social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society. That's what it means, therefore it doesn't matter what perspective wither of us draw from that.
The reason the definition of planet *changes* is because of what we learn to further understand on planets through astronomical advancement. Pluto got reclassed once it no longer met the criteria for "planet" and is now known as a "dwarf planet", the very same way our moon got reclassed from "planet" to "moon" in the past. * www.nationalgeographic.com/.../
We are not defining what a planet is ourselves rather we are learning to understand what a planet is and are correcting ourselves.
Okay, quote my definition of social construct and explain how and why it does not square with the one you are using then.
The reason the definition for planet changed is because we changed it. There was literally a meeting in 2006 where scientists got together and created a new definition for "planet". It was new information that led us to make that change, but not because that new information made our previous definition invalid, but rather because it made that definition less useful such that we required new more specific definitions. Prior to 2006, ""cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit" wasn't a requirement for being a planet. That requirement was added for the explicit purpose of excluding Pluto and other celestial bodies which would have otherwise been planets. We didn't discover the requirement, we created it.
Read the part about Pluto on the last link and you'll see exactly why Pluto is no longer classed as a planet (it even explains moons we thought were planets until we knew better).
That clearly explains we aren't changing definitions at our convenience, we only update definitions after we learn more. You cannot *change* definitions... If we haven't figured out everything about a certain topic we update a definition as we learn more. And if you decide to *change* a specific definition, that only makes you wrong. That's it hun. Sorry.
We do update definitions after we learn more. But we still update those definitions, we don't discover them. We could have just as easily updated the definition of planet to include Pluto and the other dwarf planets, and that would have been just as correct.
What is wrong is that you aren't using "social construct" the way is is described. For ex, you said: "The concept 'tree' is a social construct, even if trees physically exist." That's wrong because something such as time is a social construct, "tree" isn't because "tree" isn't a reflection of what we perceive since perception can be subjective. "Tree" is absolute reality.
& As for Pluto. "Clearing the neighboorhood" = For a planet to be the dominant gravitational body in their orbit around the sun. It's absurd for you to say we can simply create "cleared neighborhoods" if we decide it. Again, It's through astronomical advancement we learn that all 8 other planets "have cleared their neighborhoods" and we update our definition for what is a planet accordingly.
Therefore Pluto didn't stop being a planet because we decided that, it NEVER WAS a planet, read the last link I put, it's a dwarf planet and we understand that now. This is not a "social construct". That is absolute reality.
We couldn't have updated the definition of planet to include Pluto because that would have to includes all that orbit on the fringes of the solar system without being the dominant gravitational body in their orbits around the sun as planets where there is a CLEAR undisputed difference between that and the 8 planets that orbits around the sun.
We update our definition to planet accordingly to what we continue to learn about our solar system. We don't pick and chose definitions or else they become intellectually dishonest, just like it would be to include Pluto in the class of planets.
A palm tree being a tree is not an absolute reality. Palm trees could just as easily be categorized as grass as as trees. Again, it's not about the physical object, it's about the category we place it in.
But one planet has not cleared its neighborhood. So the category planet prior to 2006 included celestial bodies that didn't meet that requirement. However, that category was then changed to exclude such bodies. Pluto was a planet prior to 2006, nearly every source you provided says as much.
We absolutely do pick and choose our definitions. The point of a category is not to perfectly reflect the objective world, it is to allow us to understand it. Choosing a different definition for "planet" and creating a new category allowed us more precise understanding of the solar system, thus we did it. However, we could just as easily have redefined things differently, and that still would have been correct.
See if you can find me a single reliable source that says it was "discovered" that Pluto was not a planet, or that Pluto never was a planet.
Also, quote from a guy who chairs the International Astronomical Union (aka the people responsible for redefining planets): "a planet is a culturally defined word that changes over time"
You seriously gonna claim to know more about astronomy than a professional astronomer?
"Palm trees could just as easily be categorized as grass as as trees" That is ridiculously absurd. How palm trees possibly be categorized the same as grass? Are you reading what you're putting down? I don't think you are.
Pluto didn't stop being a planet because we decided that, it never was a planet to begin with, the link i sent you exactly explains that. We believed if was before we learn everything we needed to learn about planets, the same way we believed the moon was.
& The point of description is to perfectly explain (not "reflect") the objective world. Are you reading what you're posting? If we absolutely do pick and choose our definitions and we could just as easily have redefined things differently, and that still would have been correct then why hasn't that ever been done before? Please give me the description of something (ex: time) differently than we have it right now and have it be intellectually accurate.
Palm trees have more in common genetically with grass than with other trees. So if you're going just by genetics, it'd make for sense to call them grass than to call them trees.
Your article isn't scientific, and doesn't actually say what you claim, actually supporting my position rather better. "The debate over what is a planet is long and ongoing, evolving with our changing understanding of the world around us. It reflects how we prioritize the intrinsic properties of a world and what we understand about the importance of circumstance and history of how the world came to be. Our solar system might have just four planets and leftover debris, or the planets might number in the hundreds including asteroids, dwarf planets, and the Kuiper Belt Objects we’ve yet to discover." Aka planet is not an objective category, but a man-made one.
Things have been redefined plenty. Pluto being reclassified is an example of changing definitions. Another example is different cultures having different color words and a different amount of colors. Another is how different races have been redefined (like irish people being considered a different race than most white people).
When did I ever claim I know more than him? I'm proving exactly what he is saying.
Cul·ture = The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
Since the definition for planet changed through astronomical advancement through future generations it is culturally define. I explained about five times now that the moon was believed to be a planet until we understood better did I not? You're the one claiming to know more than him!
Everything that is regarded as fact is perfectly accurate. Everything. We learn in basic math to use "=" for absolute answer, "≈" for approximate answers to get us closer to the truth and "≠" for what is not an equal/absolute answer. This is used throughout all intellectual fields.
Palm tree is a giant grass but it's still it isn't the same as turf grass, hence two distinctive descriptions. But now you're going in circles again. Even if you change the name for palm trees that doesn't change the fact that an evergreen plant (what we call palm tree) with fan-shaped leaves is an evergreen plant with fan-shaped leaves. You cannot change that description.
And everything I put down is scientific or containing scientific info. how does what you quote prove anything rather than exactly what it explains which is that the definition for planet changes through astronomical advancement through future generations that we continue to make?
Even If we find out something specific that makes for the criteria of a planet (Ex: inhabited by life) which makes Earth the ONLY planet in our solar system, that would mean that all the other "planets" were never planets to begin with and we'd update our definition accordingly. That is the opposite of defining Earth at our convenience.
Pluto is not an example since Pluto was never a planet.
Different color words aren't an example either. Different color words for blue doesn't mean that #ThisColor changes with every definition, what is #Blue is absolute reality, we can put different names on it but that has not effect on what #Blue is.
You can't use race as an example since it IS a social construct. First of all all "race" is a social term. That is hardly ever used in scientific circles, "species" is what is used. Second, race is a social term used for people of different skin tone and hair that's all it is. Three, all human being have 99.9% identical DNA.
I said earlier that social construct can be freely define by society since that's exactly what they are, concepts constructed by society. Have I not? "Race" only came into existence after we constructed it within our societies. All human beings are one specie (and that isn't a social construct that is absolute reality).
All of what I quote is either from scientific sources or from the same sources you're using.
I mean it'd mean that all the other planets were never planets by the current definition, but they were planets once in terms of past definitions of planet. But the point is, what a planet is is changeable based on society's idea of what is a planet. Do you agree with that point?
Look, even you admit that there is a distinction between the categories we place on things and the physical things themselves. The category "tree" is a social construct. The physical tree is not. Social constructs are the categories, the meanings placed on objects, not the physical objects themselves.
Okay fine let's call it grass. That doesn't change the fact that an evergreen plant with fan-shaped leaves is an evergreen plant with fan-shaped leaves.
If you had any scientific basis on anything you were saying you would be right. None of what you said had any basis whatsoever and is completely intellectually dishonest. You even claim that we simply to place "categories" to help us "understand things better". But tha couldn't be further from the truth... Everything mathematicians and scientists (and all other intellectuals) do is find absolute answer to the objective world (if there are approximate and rough answers we continue to learn and update out knowledge until we find the absolute answer).
& No. I don't agree with that point because it's wrong. Society cannot define what a planet is. By your logic a middle schooler who believes the chemical composition for all carbohydrates are the same is right (since that's how he understands it due to basic middle school knowledge)?
Glucose fructose and sucrose are all carbohydrate and all have different chemical compositions. By your logic all carbohydrates are identically composed since that's as far as middle school knowledge expands. And then carbohydrates magically all form different compositions once we understand them better at the high school level, since WE define what carbohydrates are and carbohydrates are only "social constructs"... That is intellectually dishonest.
The chemical composition of carbohydrates never has and never will change, our knowledge of carbs is what changes and we understand that all carbs are differently composed. This very same thing applies to astronomical advancement and "planets".
This very same thing applies to gender. There are two gender only and that will never change. All the other "genders" what are "socially constructed". The very same way if communities of middle schoolers redefined carbs today, that's what would be the social construct. NOTHING changes about carbs.
Wow you really can't get this through your skull can you? It's not about the thing itself changing, it's about what we call it and how we categorize it being subjective. You yourself have acknowledged that that's the case, but somehow you can't seem to understand that that's what social constructionism is about.
I have never acknowledged that at any point. Ever. I've said over and over than the names give things does not change the thing itself. And that everything mathematical and scientific (and anything intellectual) we categorize are done objectively.
& Subjectivity does not make something intellectually accurate, objectivity is what does. If society collectively decided that carbohydrates all are identically composed. That doesn't make society right since that's how we subjectively categorize carbohydrates. All carbohydrates are differently composed and that is absolute reality.
This very same thing applies to gender. There are two genders that is absolute reality the same way all carbohydrates are differently composed. The indefinite number of "genders" that liberal society has decided on is what is a social construct, the same way if it would be if society decided all carbs are identically composed (despite them all being differently composed).
Kiddo, when even one of the actual astronomers involved in the reclassification of Pluto disagrees with you, you've gotta accept you're wrong. As I've said, I doubt you can find a single reputable source claiming that we "discovered" that Pluto isn't a planet, or that Pluto was never a planet. Pretty much every source says that it lost its planet status, not that we were wrong about its status.
Look, things don't sort themselves into categories. Palm trees aren't naturally of the class "tree", they only are because we decided they are. Social constructs are what we call things. Social constructs are the labels and meanings we apply to the world in an effort to better understand and organize it. "Tree" is not an absolute reality in that what kinds of plants fit into the category "tree" is not objective, as demonstrated by palm trees being considered trees.
Yes, that's your opinion. You have a definition of gender that apparently relies exclusively on external genetalia, which is all well and good, but your definition is still not the scientific one nor the "correct" one. It's like if you decided that for you, to be a tree something needs to have green leaves, so trees with purple leaves (plum trees for instance) or trees without leaves were not trees. You can have that definition, but it's not the "correct" one if you intend to use it to communicate with others.
Thank you for such eye opener, however, I thought that I will read somethings related to the common behaviors between the M&F like why some men are very soft in handling like girls and why do some female have a voice of male and a like.
Gender bending to indoctrinate others , to become pro-choice and to use politically-correct scientific notations in the attempt to affiliate others as you are , is what your intentions are here.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
68Opinion
Well there is one defining factor here. Men have dick and balls, women have tits and pussy.
She said thats complicated
So if a woman gets a masectomy she's not a woman? Or if a man is born with a mutation such that he doesn't have testicles?
you're just complicating the issue. There are hermaphrodites. I was merely stating what makes a man or a y.
I'm not complicating the issue, you're oversimplifying it. External genetalia are not the only thing sex is defined by.
yeah but it usually is. That's what I'm saying.
Usually yes. But only because that's what we usually use. Our decision to usually use certain traits over others to sort things into categories we have defined is what makes sex a social construct.
Well it's a social construct if you want to be trans or something whereas it's just biology to have a cock and balls
Genetalia are biological, but the category of sex is still constructed by society. Basically, it's not things themselves that are socially constructed, it's the meanings we assign them, like having a penis meaning maleness.
But being born with a penis ans balls literally means you're male...
Only because we say it does.
But it actually does. I'm not really understanding where you're coming from on this.
Like a female hedgehog doesn't think it's sex is a social construct. It just knows it's female. Well, let me rephrase that - it may not KNOW but it is and instinctively knows it's the one opposite from the other and can find the other to mate.
There is an objective difference between having a penis and having a vagina. The categories of male and female reproductive organs exist outside of humans. However, we as humans have specific definitions of what it means to be male and what it means to be female. We use sexual organs as part of this definition, but also include chromosomes and hormones and other aspects as relevant traits making someone one sex or another. Thereby, we construct the categories of male and female around biological facts such as what sexual organs someone has and what chromosomes they have. So while sex exists outside of humans perception in some sense, when we talk about sex and call people male or female based on their traits we are using a socially constructed category. It's like the color spectrum- red is a different wavelength from yellow, but their status as different colors (when red and dark red aren't necessarily labeled as such) is a social construct.
You've lost me
Basically, we decide which traits matter and which don't when deciding what sex someone is. Some people define sex based only on the genitals someone has, some define it based on what chromosomes they have, some define it through a mix of both traits as well as others. What trait or traits sex is defined by is where sex becomes constructed.
I'll just take your word for it at this stage.
Lol fair enough. Like I said in the take, this shit is super complicated. Basically, point is, the difference between a cup and a bowl is what we call it, not anything inherent about it. It's weird, and it gets even weirder with natural things, but that's basically how it works (as far as I can tell anyways)
Well it's true that we can decide what we call it.
Yep basically. Socially constructing something is basically the same as deciding what to call something, but with a little more category nonsense attached. Like deciding how many colors we have, when technically speaking there's infinite ones.
Penis = Man
Vagina = Woman
No other social construct needed :P
In other words I should accept all Genders because it's a Social Construct. Tell me something I haven't heard.
I would think the whole trees are a social construct bit would be a new one, but maybe you're just that well read.
Oh no, In my day I've read quite a bit of mystics
'' While my main motivator to write this take was to explain how I view sex and gender, this is a SUPER COMPLICATED ISSUE, and as such needs a lot of background on social constructs ''
No it is not complicated.
there's men and women, period.
While there are some feminine males and some masculine females, it still men and women. That simple and it has been that simple for millions of years.
.
So you didn't read the take then? What about intersex people? And don't say "oh they're the exception so they don't count" because that's not the point. I'm not arguing there's more variation in sex than there actually is, only that the categories for sex are to some degree arbitrarily defined and could be more fluid, but due to our construction of them are not. And if you're speaking of gender, you clearly don't understand that in the slightest either.
Im not here to convince you.
If you find this confusing, then thats your problem but please dont be spreading misinformation to other people.
If you didn't want to have a discussion, why comment?
What would you like to talk about
Gender, sex, and everything else as a social construct.
Race too
http://i.imgur.com/2V3QPU7.jpg
Believe it or not there is still some debate in the scientific community regarding whether race has no scientific basis. Some scientists, rely on differences in anatomy to provide an objective basis for race classification and do so with incredibly high accuracy. While it is true that one generally cannot rely exclusively on genetics or DNA samples to determine race, forensic anthropologists rely on skeletal differences to determine a persons race with a high degree of accuracy. However, that still doesn't mean one has to subscribe to race. Race may be a useful theoretical construct for this scientific discipline with an objective basis in reality without being "real".
@greenman26 Read what anthropologists say:
www.americananthro.org/.../Content.aspx
@greenman26 Not much objectivity in it: a black person from Zambia will be VERY different from an Haitian or an American black person.
@greenman26 fake science lol
I agree that a black person from Zambia might be very different from a black person from the US. The racial classification as used by forensic anthropologists are not as simplistic as "black" vs "white". That is a gross oversimplification of their position. You'll have to look up the pbs article "is race real" because I can't post links yet.
Also, thank you for providing that article that explicitly states that they opinion expressed in that article does not represent a consensus among anthropologists. To my original point, there is still disagreement among the community as to whether there is an objective standard that conforms to race categories. When you have something like 80% success rate you have to wonder how they are so successful when there's not much objectivity to it. My other point being that there can be an objective basis to a classification and it can still be a social construct. The two views are not mutually exclusive.
@FreedomByChoice fake news!
@greenman26 for someone to be a different race they would not fall under the category under homo sapiens. humans have a 1-2% difference in their genetic range dude. We may appear different, but we have not had enough time to become sub speices yet. Ideally that can take another 200,000-300,000 years. All the other varieties of the human race has been wiped out some 30,000 years ago from who know what
@FreedomByChoice You are completely confusing my point. There is one category called Homo sapiens (that refers to all of mankind) and under that classification you have difference races. That is a system of classification just like you can have different breeds of dogs all falling under the genus Canis (DNA also can't determine what breed a dog is but we don't claim there aren't different breeds). So what's your point? I never said that different races were different species lol. So I have no idea what you are talking about.
I guess I should qualify my statement as you can't use a dogs DNA with 100% accuracy, just like with humans because dogs share so much DNA in common. I spoke a little too hasty.
@greenman26 there is no variation or sub species of homo sapiens. its either you are a homo sapien, or you are not human as homo sapiens are the only known living humans left on this planet. Black people are homo spiens, whites are and so are Asians. Dogs have such variation because we have sped up their evolution but they are still the same race as far as geneticists are concerned. calling it a different race due to the appearances that a animal has is not a concrete way to go about it and anyone who does that is pretty much using 18th century Darwinism. we have not had enough time to actually breach off to a different ''race''. the modern term for race is basically a certain type of species, it has nothing to do with the outdated version of evolution that you keep using
@FreedomByChoice Dude... I'm sorry but I can't help you here. You are using words interchangeably that have very distinct meanings. First of all, you seem to think that being a different race would somehow require that people be different species. Nobody in the scientific community who uses the term race thinks they are referring to different species or sub species. Please educate yourself.
But yes, I agree with you 100% that all people are by definition homo sapiens.
@greenman26 actually, you need to educate yourself. Any evolutionist who agrees with the modern theory of evolution will tell you race is in fact a certain species. just because you are stuck in the 18th century does not mean the whole science community is there with you. Dont believe me? simply read the scientific journal on that matter
@FreedomByChoice I've gotta disagree on that one. As far as I'm aware, the typical standard used for determining species is whether two organisms can interbreed and create offspring without any issues. Unless there's some different definition being used?
''Even with no issues'' all species face a lot of problems when intermixing whether they are the same or not. I won't talk about tigers and lions mixing because usually they aren't fertile BUT I will talk about the fact that there were other human species that did in fact mix as there are traces of their dna in ours. There is more too it, if a species is really close to you such as a sub species then they sure can mix with little to no problem which is why there are now wolves mixed with domesticated dogs which are now being sold on the market at high rates. a lot of the time, they face no problem.
@FreedomByChoice Occasionally hybrids can be fertile, more often the females I think, though I'm not exactly an expert on this. That said, issues like those you bring up are demonstrations of why "species" isn't exactly a fantastically defined category. I'm not a expert on this field, so I'm not gonna claim to know the details of how species are differentiated, but as far as biology goes humans are currently all classified as the same species. You or others might take issue with that classification for some reason or another, but until the actual definition is changed that's how it is, because social constructionism and descriptivism and whatever.
you are actually getting me confused with greenman. My point never was to suggest that homo sapiens somehow fell under other categories. I implore you to read over this post again. Also, the female liger can only give birth if its a male lion most of the time. not a male tiger.
and besides that, the wolf and domesticated dog mixing was a great example as dogs have branched off from a wolf species that died out long ago yet are able to mix with modern day wolves and create hybrids with no fertility problems due to dogs being a sub species
@FreedomByChoice I don't think so? The only point I'm objecting to is that different races are different species, since as far as I'm aware the way species is defined/categorized it doesn't quite work that way. Is there some other meaning to the word species or something?
this is literally what you told me lol '' but as far as biology goes humans are currently all classified as the same species. You or others might take issue with that classification for some reason or another, ''
I never suggested anything close to saying we are different species. you may have saw my comment when I was talking about the other types of humans? I was basically talking about when there was a time when there were other species but went extinct 30,000 years ago. I know we are all homo sapien, then greenman had the opinion of using physical traits to label species which was basically 18th century Darwinism.
@FreedomByChoice I was initially responding to your statement "Any evolutionist who agrees with the modern theory of evolution will tell you race is in fact a certain species". Maybe I misunderstood your meaning because I was jumping in halfway through the discussion, but it sure seems like you're saying that different races are different species.
not race in the way you are thinking.
@FreedomByChoice Ahh so your argument is that "race" isn't the correct term for different appearances in humans?
yea lol
@FreedomByChoice Gotcha. Well even then I'm not sure I really agree, but that's more of a linguistics issue than a biology one. Basically, the way we use the word "race" is to mean those kinds of differences between humans, thus "race" is the term for those differences. There might also be an alternative meaning to the term which I am not aware of, but the meaning I thought you were using is still a correct one. That said, I haven't read the full argument so I dunno what meaning was the correct one to use in this context, but w/e.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/257ixqa.jpg
This whole line of reasoning is totally ridiculous. FYI, every "social construct" that mankind has ever developed has served to artificially make women more equal to men. And still, most women will never be as manly as a below average beta male. You really are over thinking this issue...
Yikes dude. Keep your sexism off my post next time.
I've already made my point...
That you're a sexist? Ya, that you have.
Wage gap is a social construct, thus doesn't exist.
If you think something being a social construct means it doesn't exist, you don't understand what a social construct is and need to go reread the take.
Are you triggering me?
I don't know, do you have PTSD related to social constructs?
Yeap.
Somehow I don't believe you hon.
That's offensive.
Also, in what way is making fun of disability even a funny joke? "Haha some people have mental trauma that causes them to have panic attacks at the mention of certain concepts". Yes, very funny, now go play outside with the other 13 year olds.
>> Yes, very funny, now go play outside with the other 13 year olds.
Are you expressing ageism? In what way is making fun of age even a funny joke?
"Ooh look at me I'm making shoddily thought out satirical comments aren't I clever" Isn't it past your bedtime hon? Developing minds like yours need their rest after all.
10 AM, hun.
Hmm, well you seem rather irrational sweetie, are you sure you got enough rest?
Yes, mommy.
Now run along and play with your friends, and try to think before you speak next time.
Gotta take you back to some safe space first.
"I'm gonna use some buzzword that I don't fully understand in a sad attempt at mockery, look how witty I am"
Didn't I tell you to run along?
I agree that gender is a social construct, but I still don't understand people who change their gender. I don't hate them, but I think it's weird
It's not changing their gender so much as revealing the gender they actually are.
Yes, because taking hormones and getting cosmetic surgery, not only that, but getting your junk chopped off or mutilated is "revealing" who you actually are.
Last time I checked, if you're female, you don't have to go through all this crap to look like it. Not only that, but once these people stop taking their hormones, they begin to revert. You don't revert if you're actually something.
Not to mention that these "females" don't get periods, they can't carry babies, they don't have breasts or vaginas. They have to get all of these added onto them. Nor do they have female chromosomes, bone morrow anything that makes a female a female. And the same thing applies to trans males. If someone were to take their DNA, it would come back as the DNA of the gender they actually are.
@lovelyhoneybones Altering one's appearance is not equivalent to altering one's gender. Additionally, why do you think that the appearance a person is born with is any more true to who they are in a non-physical sense than the appearance a person chooses?
Getting periods, carrying babies, and having breasts or vaginas are not what makes a person female. Or rather, they are a part of it, but they are not the sole determiners of female-ness. Or would you call women without uteruses or breasts (through genetic abnormalities or surgery) not women?
Again with abnormalities, they're lesser cases than NORMAL females. No, I would not classify a woman without a uterus as being a male. That makes no sense what so ever and that isn't even my argument. I also stated about DNA. These factors are apart of being a FEMALE. Something that dudes are not, nor will they ever be.
For example, take a black person who bleaches their skin to become white or light in color, are they no classified as a white person according to nature or their DNA? No, they are not. They are an individual who simply changed their outer appearance. If someone where to take a DNA sample, it would come back as African American or whatever they are. Same thing with their skeleton. If someone were to dig up their remains, they could identify them as African American by their bones. That's what would happen with a transgender. Their bones will just have been mutilated.
@lovelyhoneybones Why is normalicy relevant? And yes, those factors are a part of being female. The category "female" is made up of a great number of factors, and which specific factors are relevant and which are less so is not due to inherent biological truth, but rather due to how we as a society choose to define the category, which is why I say such a category is socially constructed.
And I think your issue is that you are using the genetic status of a person as the primary indicator of their category, be it race, sex, or gender. The problem is, there is more to those categories than just DNA or chromosomes.
Normalcy is actually VERY important when it comes to situations like this. You can't make a steady argument if you're using groups that are born with defects. I mean come on, they're recognized by the medical world as being not normal. You can't jump on my case about that.
The female category is made up of being a female. It's that simple. Anyone with common sense comprehends that a male is a male and a female is a female. My 6 year old cousin comprehends that and here I am, talking to a 19 year like she just got into the world.
If you want to get away from DNA and just debate about how you can tell a real woman from a transgender, we can do that all day. We don't even act a like. Females have feminine qualities that come from being a female. Transgender males don't even act like normal females, they always act like the ones who look fake and act fake... I wonder why.
@lovelyhoneybones You can make a steady argument. Why couldn't you? Red hair is an abnormality, yet no one claims that the "red head" category is less valid than the "black haired" category.
So why did you list child bearing and having a period as apparent indicators of femininity? And how exactly would you define female- how can you tell whether someone is female and not male?
Where does anything say that red hair is a trait to either gender? Red hair isn't even a trait restricted to one race. Many ethincites can have the red hair gene. Periods are not associated with males. Uteruses are not associated with males nor will they ever be. You're missing the point here. A lot of people can get red hair. Yes, it may be less of a chance than black hair, but the same applies with green eyes. Yet somehow I know more people with red hair and green eyes than I do people with black hair.
Not to mention that red hair and green eyes are more common than transgenders. And also are a natural occurrence.
@lovelyhoneybones It's called a comparison. My point is that red hair is an abnormality, yet I doubt you would discount it as an abnormality and thus not worthy of a distinct category, as you appear to be doing with intersex individuals.
Who's to say being transgender is not a natural occurrence, like a psychological form of being intersex?
That's an inaccurate comparison. Those two don't even compare. You're just making yourself look like an idiot trying to compare red hair to a uterus.
When it comes to human beings it isn't a natural occurrence. Just like my original comment on this post, if you have to change a bunch of stuff to be "who you are", you're not who you are. Especially if you're taking something that you need for the rest of your life because the moment you stop taking it, you revert back to your natural form with some downsides and permanent damage.
@lovelyhoneybones Are you really this thickheaded? The point is the categories constructed around them, and whether normalicy is relevant when considering constructed categories or not.
How do you know it's not a natural occurrence?
I'm the thickheaded one when I literally just said modifying yourself does not mean the same thing as naturally being something...
I'm losing brain cells talking to you.
Anyone with common sense knows that. You don't need to become a chick if you're already a chick. You don't need to become a dude if you're already a dude. A natural occurrence is something that happens naturally.
@lovelyhoneybones Yes, you are. I recognize the difference between one's natural form and one's modified form, I simply do not see the relevance, and you have as of yet failed to explain it properly.
@lovelyhoneybones The issue is that your definitions as to what constitutes "male" or "female" are inaccurate. Again, DNA or chromosomes are not the sole determiner of either sex or race or really any of the categories we have mentioned, which is something you appear incapable of understanding.
@cipher42 "How do you know it's not a natural occurrence? "
That's the relevance. And everything we were talking about before that.
@lovelyhoneybones That's not an answer to my question. Or if it is, I don't understand it, so you need to explain yourself better.
No, no. It is an answer to your question. You asked how natural occurrences have anything to do with this, you asked me and I answered. It has everything to do with this. Because if something is not backed by nature, you can not sit here and try to argue that it's normal. Science is backed by nature. Scientists base their studies off of nature and what occurs naturally. Transgender human beings are not natural.
@lovelyhoneybones I didn't ask how natural occurrences have to do with this, I asked how you knew being transgender isn't a natural occurence.
@lovelyhoneybones And are refrigerators not "normal" then? How about cars? How about being religious?
We. Are. Talking. About. Human. Beings. Not man made inventions.
Something that is naturally occurring exists by nature. Transgender human beings do not exist by nature. They are not born that way. They make themselves that way.
@lovelyhoneybones No, we are talking about what is normal. And religion is something that human beings have. And are you talking about what is normal or what is natural? And once again, why does what is natural have any bearing on what is or isn't a social construct? And how do you know transgender people aren't born that way? You are aware that having gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy aren't required for being transgender?
I said MAN made. Religion falls under that. Refrigerators fall under that. I said and YOU said something that is naturally occurring, don't try to back track because all you have to do is scroll back up. Transgenders are not born modified. They're normal human beings born with either of the two genders who later on in life decide that they are not happy with who they are.
@lovelyhoneybones Again, being "modified" is not what defines being transgender. Transgender people can be wholly unaltered by any medication or surgery whatsoever and still be transgender. Many simply choose to modify themselves to fit more precisely into the socially constructed category of the gender they identify as, much as many women choose to wear dresses to be more feminine.
That still isn't naturally occurring. Most transgenders don't even get these thoughts or feelings until after a certain age. Or if they're teenagers trying to be "different".
@lovelyhoneybones Source? Based on what I've read, many transgender people know they're transgender relatively early on. Even so, how would that prove its not naturally occurring? Depression and various psychological issues can be genetically passed on, but don't necessarily manifest until past puberty.
And you want to know why? It's called hormones. Also depression is linked to the frontal lobe. If you have a child claiming they're misgendered, that's bull. A child is a child. They're brain isn't even half way developed yet. People don't even take 18 year olds for their word, yet you're going to believe a 3 year old knows they're not the right gender? When I was 4 I recall wanting to be a boy. Why? Because all I had was male cousins and I had a new baby brother. Everyone around me was male. After a while, that went away. It's called kids being kids.
Still not naturally occurring.
@lovelyhoneybones being transgender is linked to differences in the brain. And so you're saying that children cannot understand their gender and thus cannot be trusted if they say they are transgender, yet the supposed fact that children do not know they are transgender until later proves that being transgender has no biological basis? Convenient how both options support your worldview, and very telling.
I read about this woman who's convinced herself she needs a wheelchair even though her legs are perfectly fine, it's just that some of her brain channels that fire neurons or something like that are out of whack, and I think it might be the same with transgender people. I think they have brain neurons telling them they're one gender when they're really the other. I don't think it's natural to want to change your gender. If you are born a boy, that's what you are, in my opinion; if you want to change it, I don't think it's because you are actually the other gender, but that your brain chemicals are unbalanced.
They have found that the brains of transgender people tend to resemble the gender they identify as more closely than that they were assigned at birth. In my opinion, since gender is entirely behavioral/social anyways, it doesn't really matter why someone has the gender they do, only that they do. The woman in a wheelchair is still handicapped, regardless of whether the issue lies with her mind or with her body. Similarly, transgender people are still the gender they identify as, even if the cause of their transgenderism is some mutation in the brain.
Good point
There are only 2 genders : male and female. This is not a social construct, it's a scientific fact.
I explained why this is untrue. Again, genders are a socially defined category which are descriptions for the particular behavioral patterns people have, which are categorized as "male" or "female" by society in the same way certain beliefs are ascribed as "liberal" or "conservative". People are more and more commonly deciding that more options should be available, thus creating/defining more genders, similar to how new genres of music or other media are created.
So, basically, because scientific facts hurt people's precious little feeling, we shall say "Fuck science" and create some fake genders so that people who can't face reality feel better?
No? Gender is simply not the same thing as sex. Gender is our way of socially categorizing people based on their behaviors and interests, and though our genders are modeled around our sexes, sex and gender are still distinct concepts.
The definition of gender has always be "a category such as "male" or "female" into which sexually-reproducing organisms are divided on the basis of their reproductive roles in their species". That's only because SJW started crying over nothing that people think that gender is different from sex. Basically, dumb people thought there were smart and actually soiled the English language because they didn't want to hurt the queers' precious little feelings.
No, it has not. Plenty of cultures throughout history have had the concept of non-binary genders and transgender people. That may be your definition and the definition you prefer, but it is not the one that has always existed, nor is it the one that exists currently in academia. I know it's very pleasant to believe your personal views are the objectively true ones, but sadly the world does not revolve around you.
Prove me that some cultures actually had this concept of "non-binary genders and transgender people". The only historical concept about these people was slaughter. Also, the definition is from a dictionary, not from my "personal views".
To be honest, I only read the first paragraph and I stopped because the logic was already flawed...
What, you couldn't be bothered to do a two second google search? Here's the wikipedia page, have at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
And what dictionary are you using? Most I've found define gender as largely social rather than biological, and I can't even find the definition you're using.
Also, if you haven't read my argument, why do you think you're qualified to rebut it? I don't really care how flawed you think my logic is, if you haven't actually read what I said you have no right to speak on it.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gender
I don't bother wasting my time with researching about "third genders". It's like doing research about god or religion, nothing is based on facts or proofs. It's just "Oh, some people think like that".
To quote the article "However, the state of personally identifying as, or being identified by society as, a man, a woman, or other, is usually also defined by the individual's gender identity and gender role in the particular culture in which they live. Not all cultures have strictly defined gender roles." : only gender roles and gender identity define the "third gender", not actual gender itself. Why? Because gender is male or female. "Third gender" is a social construct, gender itself is not.
Also, I didn't bother reading your whole argument because a building with clay foundation is worthless, just like an argument with a flawed first point.
So you demand proof, then discount said proof as soon as it is provided? Very convenient. Also, the article you provided lists other definitions of gender along with the usage synonymous with sex, and actually notes that the usage you used is one of the more controversial ones.
And you seem to be misreading the article on third genders. In fact, the very second sentence of the article refers to those third genders as genders, rather than only gender identities or gender roles.
Also "At the same time, feminists began to draw a distinction between (biological) sex and (social/psychological) gender." : Hey, look who it is! The feminists! Don't they stuff more important to do like actually defend women's right in the Middle East?
Just because I'm thinking I'm a pretty butterfly doesn't mean it's a gender and everyone has to recognize me as a pretty butterfly. A person who seriously thinks that would be the right thing should probably see a psychiatrist. I don't even see the need to categorize these people as a gender. It's like creating new genders just based on a random personality factor.
Wow was that an argument? Bc it just looks like a whole lot of nonsense irrelevant to any of the points I made. If you want to have a serious discussion, you're gonna have to learn to stay on topic sweetie, you can't just say things and pretend they're a counterargument when they're nothing of the sort.
Also, since you seem so educated on the non-binary subject, what are the other genders? And also, why transgenders only go from male to femal or female to male if there are more than 2 genders?
The other genders are whatever they are defined as being. I would even say that different societies ideas of male/femaleness could qualify as different genders, if one society has an expectation of maleness different enough from the expectations of another society. That gets a bit complicated though, as it creates a question of whether categories labeled the same but defined differently are different categories or no.
And transgender people don't just go from male to female and vice versa, plenty identify as non-binary, thus why such identities exist as a concept.
So, you're saying that gender depends completely on how someone feels or identifies as? So would it be possible to change gender whatever you want, be a new gender every day?
Sorta. I'm saying gender as a concept changes based on how people are categorized. What gender people themselves are depends on their personality/interests/those kinds of traits, like how what political leaning people are depends on their beliefs. So it does essentially rely on people to identify themselves, but only because only the person themself can judge what category their interests/personality best match. As for changing gender, it's no easier to change gender than to change your personality, which isn't really something that can be done at will.
So basically gender is personality trait? What's the point of using the word gender if it's only a personality trait. And it's so far from the original definition too. So, how is gender a social construct if it's different for everyone? I'm really confused there...
Not so much personality trait as personality descriptor I'd say. Or really, descriptor of how people function in society based on their personality and interests. And what original definition exactly?
And it's a social construct because it's a category/concept labeled by society.
I really don't understand the point of linking gender and feeling. Gender is, in my opinion, more closely related to sex than to feelings. I don't see how you could identify as something other than male and female. Feel free to explain me, but it doesn't sound sensible to me.
The term "gender", as currently used in most academia, refers to the social categorization of people. This social categorization is modeled off of sex, so sex and gender are related, but gender is the social expectations/roles we have for people, who are sorted into one category or the other based on how well they fit those expectations and roles. These expectations and roles make up our gender categories, much like different political parties make up political categories for us. The categories of "male" and "female" are the most well known and well used categories, but some people find that they do not fit well in either category, and thus create new ones, like how third parties are created by people who don't find they fit in the roles of "democrat" or "republican".
It seems that too many things are put behind the word gender that are completely unrelated (the same goes with racism). Guess that's just how modern people think, put every excuse possible to victimize some people so that they can do their virtue signaling. It still doesn't make sense to me. Politics views are linked to nothing, gender is linked to your crotch and your chromosomes.
Again, genetalia and chromosomes is what we use "sex" to refer to. However, it is also useful to us to have a term to refer to the social roles/categories surrounding sex, which is what we use the term "gender" for.
Yeah but gender is still tied to sex. What you're trying to explain me sounds like gender is independant from sex.
In my opinion, people tend to regroup social and personality traits behind gender, which doesn't make any sense, hence the multiple combinations (other genders). That regrouping seems like a flawed logic to me.
Not at all. As I said in the take, gender is tied to sex similarly to how political parties are tied to political affiliations. The thing about gender is just that it doesn't refer to anything physical/objective, but rather a set of social norms/categories based on something physical/objective. Despite the existing social norms being based largely on that physical/objective thing, they are still independent of it, and can even vary between different societies. Like if one culture considers oak wood as chair building wood and one considers it to be house building wood. Both cultures are basing their roles off of the same physical material, but those roles are distinct.
I found this definition and fits my ideas well :"the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).". You're still talking about the sexes, but on a social/cultural topic instead of biological.
Eeh. I don't read that definition the same way I think. To me, it means gender is usually used to refer to male and female in the non-sex sense, since male and female with regards to sex would be "biological differences", which that definition says are usually not what is meant.
I feel like so many shit has been put behind this word that it's not a relevant word anymore...
So much shit has been put behind all sorts of words, yet we understand them just fine. We even have modern words that used to mean something utterly different in the past, but changed meaning over time. Besides, the only way to make people understand it better is to continue using it in the way you want people to understand, that's how words work.
No, just because I decide the word "jelly" to designate someone smart doesn't mean that suddenly this definition should be accepted. If you start piling up definitions (sometimes contradictory ones) behind a single word, you're only gonna confuse people and people will stop using that word.
No, it doesn't. But if other people pick that change in terminology up and it becomes well known enough for people to commonly use it and understand it, then that does mean it's correct. That's how "literally" changed such that it can also be used figuratively nowadays.
And people definitely don't stop using the word. People in England still use the word "chuffed", or at least understand it, despite the word meaning both happy and annoyed. Same with the word "peruse", which means both to skim and to read thoroughly. This is why context is such a major part of language.
The litterally part is basically an "urban" definition, not an official one. Here again, it's the result of poorly worded people thinking they look smart using words they don't know. Again, their stupidity and/or lack of knowledge soils the language.
It is an official definition, it's in the dictionary. And it's not "soiling" the language, it's a natural part of how language changes. Ask any linguist buddy. This is called the prescriptivism/descriptivism issue, prescriptivism being the view that grammar is a set of rules for language to operate by, and descriptivism being the view that it is a description for how language is used. Most American linguists agree with descriptivism, aka not you.
I'm not talking really about the linguistic part, I think it's not efficient to put multiple meanings behind a single words just because many uneducated people decided to do so.
Well you may think it's not efficient, but it is how language works. If you want to build your own perfectly efficient language, go for it, but know that it probably won't be used by anyone other than yourself. Plenty of people have tried to come up with better languages, but very few of them have caught on.
It's not the question of building a new language, it's about using the ones we have properly.
Using the ones we have properly means accepting that some words have multiple meanings, even conflicting ones. You may not like those conflicting meanings, but they are still part of our language.
Yes but adding more of these meanings is just stupid. It's like someone created a software just to note appointement, and suddenly a person decides to use it to do something else and then plenty other persons find other uses. In the end, you're like "What is its actual use? What is this supposed to be?"
It's not stupid, it's how language naturally operates. Again, if you don't like it you can go create your own language, or learn one with no homonyms whatsoever, if such a one exists.
I hat how many people like you seem to tolerate human stupidity and lack of knowledge. We have words for almost everything and yet people have to misused them or soil them. A language is a set of rules. Constantly changing these rules is just pointless, just like constantly changing the rules of a game.
Again, it isn't stupidity or anything of the sort, it's just how language works. As for the rules of language, that's prescriptivism/descriptivism again. Under descriptivism, the system most English linguists agree with, the rules of language are merely a description of how language is used. In any case, learn to speak French if you hate language "impurity" so much, I hear the French are pretty elitist about their language. But if you're gonna be speaking English, no amount of fussing is going to change how English operates.
I am French... I'm sorry, but wanting to change something that already works well is stupidity to me. You can put all the fancy terms you want, it's still stupidity to my eyes.
Lmao well that explains it. And you can think it's stupid, that's your opinion. Personally I think the French's obsession with language purity is kinda stupid. But neither way is really objectively better, so who cares. All we can do is accept that certain languages work one way or another, and that no amount of bitching is gonna change that.
Even though you're mistaken and lost, I'll applaud the effort you took to write this.
Can you maybe explain why exactly you disagree with what I wrote, or are you just going to throw unfounded insults at it?
XX XY sex is genetic aka molecules aka atoms aka nothing human made
Did you read the take? Just because it has a genetic definition doesn't make it not a social construct. There are other definitions, and other factors, and which ones we use is arbitrary and socially determined.
The purpose of life at its most basic from cells to fish to us is to live to reproduce and further the species to the next generation (where in change or abnormalities happen). unlike bacteria and some other animals we as mammals and humans further our species by separating out specious into two different sexes to lower inbreeding and increase our ability to reproduce. Unfortunately inter-sex people are not a seprate sex or evolving separately into a new species but an unfortunate mutation like having an extra toe or webbed feet. Some mutations are beneficial and make a species better like longer hair, bigger heads for bigger brain capacity, other like webbed feet do nothing, and lastly some even hurt us like being born without arms.
I feel bad saying this but the male-female system IS perfect based on our reproductive system but not everyone is born perfect.
We didn't make the system we just named it like how we named the celestial body we orbit the sun.
I did read it
Thats why im only arguing the part about sex
A mutation being evolutionary unhelpful doesn't make it less relevant or less legitimate. Additionally, being intersex isn't even necessarily a hindrance evolutionary, it's just that it tends to be less common than being male or female, and as such a single vague category is made for all intersex people, when it would be just as valid to have distinct sexes for different types of intersex people.
I never said we made the system. See the distinction between wholly man made social constructs and natural ones. Basically, whole we didn't make the system, we made the categories we use to define and describe the system, categories which may be imperfect or biased.
A mutation also doesn't make it a separate category in and of itself as a. Making new sexes for intersex people would be as you described a man made imperfect or biased category.
Yes it does. How do you think evolution happens? Any mutation that becomes common enough will eventually be considered a trait of that species.
I disagree cancer mutations even common like skin cancer are not a trait but a disease. There are many common problems that happen at birth both mentally and physically which are not.
Having a genetic predisposition toward cancer would be a trait. If there were a species where most or all of its members tended to get cancer, that would be a trait of the species.
In a sense it does make sense of how it can be that way especially when sex is included in it.
Welcome to "how the mind rationalises post-modernism" #101
gender? put a man a woman who have never come in contact with civilazation alone on an island and see how they act , then you will have your answer
lol she didn't like that, truth hurts
It's not that I didn't like it, it's that what he's saying really doesn't counter any of my points. Most humans being heterosexual has no bearing on whether gender is a social construct or not.
@cipher42 but gender is not a social construst, so there's that.
@Listening5 It is, as is color, as are trees, as are political leanings, and as is pretty much everything else.
Let's put @Z-Spark and @Listening5 on a stranded island together and see how they act. Then we will have another answer.
@Listening5 Gender is most definitely a social construct, in that people assume that I'm a lesbian/into women and not men because I don't act "like a woman", I don't dress "like a woman", and I'm not into "girly" things.
Serious question: how the hell are TREES a social construct when they exists without human intervention, have existed since before we did, and are crucial to our own survival in providing oxygen?
@dragonfly6516 I explained in the take. Something being a social construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of society, only that the way we categorize it is socially constructed. So it's not so much that trees themselves are social constructs as that the difference between a tree and a bush is.
Well, technically the classification of flora falls under certain standards of scientific study; but even then, you're still correct in the social constructs of those scientists charged with the task of classifying affecting the outcome.
Either way, the statement, "Trees are social constructs" is still false, because it is only their classification, and not the trees themselves. Tomato, tomatto. I do understand what you meant, and I agree with what you were trying to say.
@dragonfly6516 Yes, I realize that the trees themselves are not the social construct. That said, I couldn't find a better way to express the idea that the concept of "tree" is socially constructed, despite the material object that the word "tree" refers to not being such. I hoped that would be clear through the rest of my explanation.
Its not social construct its how things are intended to be, its how we are as humans are wired, its nature doing its job , we just gave it a name, green, red and blue are colors they have been there since forever but we just gave them a name we named them with different names to distinguish between them it doesn't mean we created them we simply discovered that they exist and gave them a name to make life easier for us when we want to describe said color.
and so is gender, i as a guy have a set of traits that you as a girl dont have no matter how hard you try to mimic me , its natural its not social construct, law is social construct so is a driving test or an exam to get into a good college, yes we made those things up but men a women? we didn't make them we simply gave names to what they do and how the act, there is a reason in African tribes men are the hunters and women cook and take care of the kids and its not social construct.
Did you not read my take? Social construct doesn't mean made up, it means that the thing has been given meaning/categorized by us. Those things are colors, but the fact that we categorize them as different colors, and where the boundaries between them lie, is socially constructed. In naming the colors, we separate them from each other arbitrarily. It's like if I took all plants and divided them into the categories "tall plants" and "short plants" with no other categories. I'm not changing what the plants are, but I am creating arbitrary categories for them, thus "tall plants" and "short plants" would be socially constructed in that I use those categories instead of others.
you're implying that we created these things and gave them their properties which is not right at all all we did was make life easier for us but we did not change anything nor made things up, gender has been there since the begging of time all we did is say " what if give it a name so we know what the hell we are talking about" thats all, you can't be half man half woman, you can't be a unicorn... etc
No, I am not. You clearly need to read the take, right now you're just assuming you understand what it's about and constructing strawman arguments based on that.
Another brainless feminist liberal on this website. Who seriously bothered wasting their time reading this shit? I honestly want to know 🤔
Apparently not you, meaning that your opinion on my positions is meaningless.
You call what you tried to argue positions? Profligate. You knew better than to give reference on scientific evidence for this trash you composed. Then you even have the gal to say my opinions are meaningless...
by the way, you're definitely not 19, you're 30+ over the hill. I can see from your picture.
If you didn't read what I argued, you wouldn't know what it is or isn't. And no amount of silly insults are gonna make you any more right.
Why do I need to read it? I've seen your exact arguments hundreds of times over on liberal websites and even had the displeasure of having this shoved down my throat at my university. Hell, I've even had a girl tell me if I wasn't liberal like her and believed in all this trash she'd never speak to me again.
I've also picked apart this little argument with real biological and anthropological references. You KNOW you're wrong, I don't even need to argue you. We both know you're wrong lmao.
If you haven't read it, you can't know what my arguments are, so you can't know they're the "exact same".
And the issue is that this is not a biological or anthropological argument, it's a philosophical and potentially sociological one.
Now what tf does "philosophy" have to do with trying to prove that there are 60+ genders? 🤔
With you being a radical third wave feminist and lgbt warrior, I expected you to be stupid, but what you just said doesn't add up. Sociology? Fine. Philosophy? Lol.
This "issue" is completely scientific. But of course you'd try to escape that fact because science demolishes any argument you want to bring up about the existence of 'half demi-trans megafemales' or whatever other "gender" you pull out of thin air.
Philosophical in that I would argue that the social constructionism view of the world is a type of philosophy.
I didn't say the issue wasn't scientific, only that it wasn't the kind of science you seem to think. Gender is not a biological category, it is a psychological and sociological one, at least the way the term "gender" currently tends to be used in academia.
Wrong. The way "gender" tends to be used in academia (meaning liberal platforms like the modern university/college) fine, that's how "gender" is referred.
But what gender truly is, is completely biological. Now you can play radical feminist all you want, but you KNOW that is the truth, and you KNOW what you stand for is intellectually dishonest. But for some odd sexual perversion you might have, you want to validate yourself with a complete lie (maybe you like watching trans porn or some shit I have no fucking clue).
That's not what gender "truly is" that's how you define gender. Ask pretty much any of the major psychological associations. Even the one that literally publishes the book on mental illness defines gender that way.
Letting slide the laughable statement you said about mental illness books describing gender the way you define it...
Yes I'm completely aware of the nonsense that is pushed down your throat at these universities, and the statements made from modern liberal psychologists such as "you're born gay", "gender is a spectrum", and "there are over 60 genders". I've seen it all. But at the end of the day none of those statements are grounded in scientific studies/research but rather in assumptions and liberal opinions.
Basic biology still trumps everything you put down on your take, there are TWO genders, that is a biological fact. All the 60+ other genders you invent, now those are what are social constructs, and you have NO way of proving otherwise.
You need to work on your reading skills. It's not that the book on mental illness defines gender that way, it's that the psycholgicial organization that publishes that book does.
And sex is biological, gender is not. Gender is the term for the social roles societies construct which are based party on sex, but are not dependent upon it.
Wrong again, the only who needs to work on their reading skills is YOU. Gender inherent with the sex you are born with, it cannot be constructed or assigned. Do you even understand what gender is? Biologically speaking sex and gender are corresponding terms.
Gender splits the general roles and responsibilities between the two sexes according to what each sex can accomplish more efficiently, that is inherent, and that is a FACT. From the beginning of time, even before civilized societies began, there has also TWO distinctive roles/responsibilities for each sex.
Gender and their distinctive roles are even present throughout ALL types of species on our planet. How can gender possibly be a "social construct" if it's present even in the least intelligent animals such as horses and pigs who will live in the wild without civilized societies? How uncivilized unsophisticated species in the animal kingdom socially construct genders, let alone socially construct anything? 🤔
That was a question that remains unanswered by the most liberal scientists out there and your psychological organizations who make these gender statements.
Who told wild dogs to form two distinct set of general roles and responsibilities for only the TWO biological sexes? 🤔
I honestly want to see you answer this Q. Hold on. Let me guess... The patriarchy?
Gender is largely only synonymous to sex in the colloquial sense. I am not using the colloquial definition of gender, but rather the one commonly used in academia, where gender is a way of referring to the social roles surrounding sex. Do you have trouble understanding that words can have more than one correct usage or something?
As for the "two sexes" thing, I addressed that in my take. Other sexes occur (intersex people) but are largely classified as "disorders" because they are rare because they don't provide much of an evolutionary advantage.
I expect you to be ridiculously absurd but wtf are you talking about? I couldn't care less what sense you want to take for gender and I care just a little about how gender is used in modern academia.
There is only ONE description as to what gender is and that is present throughout all forms of life on this entire planet since the beginning of time. Gender isn't a "social construct", it's inherent with your biological sex.
As for the intersex nonsense you tried to pull to save yourself, these people suffer from genetic abberations, the very same way a child with down syndrome does. I know you were trying to imply that these people can simply choose/switch their gender at their convenience, but these people still the have biological, psychological, hormonal, physical, difference that either make them man or woman. Plus, there are no documented cases of an individual where both testes and ovarian tissue were functional. One is complete and the other is incomplete. Nice try.
Buddy, you can stick to your own personal definition as much as you want, but that doesn't make it any more right. The term gender means what the term gender means, and no amount of whining is going to change that.
Buddy, learn to read. I'm not going to bother myself with a counterargument to an argument that's not my own.
Not only is it disgusting of you to use people born with genetic malfunctions, but I will NOT let you disregarding the question I asked you (which is NOT answered anywhere in your take).
Who told wild male dog to be protective of his territory? who told the male peacock to use their hued plumes in attempts to attract females? who told female lions to go hunt? Why are there distinct set of general roles and responsibilities for only the TWO biological sexes? 🤔
Who is the one creating all these "social constructs"...
You still don't know what social construct even means, huh? You're still arguing against a position that isn't mine. You've basically created a fake me with inaccurate views to have an argument with. So like have fun debating with your imaginary friend if you like, but leave me out of it.
Please quote my exact words on where I used my own personal definition as to what gender means? I'll fucking wait... Your position is that gender is a social construct and that's WRONG. My position is that there are only TWO genders, all the other gender you believe exist are what are "social constructs".
I used the exact scientific definition as what gender means and what gender is. No one "socially constructed" gender. Male and females have genetic, biological, psychological, hormonal, physical, difference that either make them male or female. And gender gives distinct general roles and responsibilities and standards between the two sexes according to what each sex can accomplish efficiently, therefore making gender directly correspondent to your biological sex.
What I said is biological fact and has existed since the beginning of time. Men and women have always distinct standards which evolved into modern gender roles and standards and even symbols (ex: blue and pink).
I've proven your position which is based on liberal indoctrination rather than factual evidence to be wrong. Proving your point to be right is contingent on answering my question. If you cannot answer my question then there is no point in continuing with you.
My question: There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the TWO biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"? 🤔
"There is only ONE description as to what gender is and that is present throughout all forms of life on this entire planet since the beginning of time. Gender isn't a "social construct", it's inherent with your biological sex."
Definition of gender: "Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female." Aka there is not only one definition of gender, and the current typical usage of gender tends to be more social than biological.
And you haven't proven my position to be anything, since you don't understand my position. Rather, you have made arguments about a position which isn't mine, because evidently the only kind of argument you can win is one against a fictional person.
As I explained in my take, even objectively real physical objects can have social constructs created around them. The concept "tree" is a social construct, even if trees physically exist.
@cipher42 Why are you even bothering with this guy? Either he's a troll or he's just ignorant and he's going to keep spewing hate out of his mouth because he can be anonymous on the internet and his mom never taught him how to treat people with respect. Plus, I think his name and profile picture tells us everything we need to know about this guy.
You try to save yourself again but you dig yourself in a deeper hole than before. The dictionary definition clearly states that gender is the state of being either male or female, and then explains how it is typically used.
Here is the direct definition of what gender is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender
You can say I'm not really arguing your position, but you're position is that gender is a "social construct" and that's exactly what I'm picking apart. What you say does nothing advance your position.
Especially that tree garbage you just said. How the concept of tree be a "social construct" if the concept of tree and the tree has always existed? We simply learned to understand it. Concepts such as 'Time' are a social construct, but things that have existed before we even gave meaning to them are not constructed by society. You make absolutely ZERO fucking sense.
And this is the last time I'm going to ask you this question. If you cannot answer it then simply let me know and I'll understand you have zero basis whatsoever to base your personal beliefs on.
My question: There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the TWO biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"? 🤔
Wow you really can't read, huh? "The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
And you aren't arguing with my position about gender being a social construct either, because you don't understand what "social construct" means the way I'm using it. You are once again using a different definition from me and assuming that makes you right, like people saying the theory of evolution isn't reliable because it's a "theory", when "theory" in science means something completely different from what it does colloquially. That's the answer to your question. Those things can be social constructs because all concepts are socially constructed, regardless of whether or not those concepts represent objective truths or not.
Again, I honestly couldn't care less about what way you're using social construct. That phrase has one meaning and that is the definition I speak when I say "social construct".
Here is the definition for it since you are lost: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-construct
If you're going to started inventing you're own meaning to it, then let me know and I'll let you make up all the definitions along with all the genders you want.
"Those things can be social constructs because all concepts are socially constructed" That right there is liberal feminist insanity at it's finest, and you've failed to prove otherwise. Believe this all you want, but that's the furthest from accurate you can possibly be.
On top of failing to prove your position, you're starting to make me go in circles now, and I've repeated myself and asked you the same question (that you have been unable to answer) multiple times now.
You even tried to use genetic malfunctions to save your argument and now I see you're bringing up the theory of evolution? You're out breath, I'm done with you. Until you reply an answer to my question, I won't entertain your delusions any further.
(Last chance) My question: There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the Two biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"? 🤔
That definition doesn't contradict my usage. The category of "sex" and the perception thereof are still culturally created. Just like the category "tree" or the category "rock". Go look up social constructionism and read the wikipedia article, it explains the concept the same way I do. Quick snippet for you " Consider a hypothetical claim that quarks are "socially constructed". On one reading, this means that quarks themselves are not "inevitable" or "determined by the nature of things." On another reading, this means that our idea (or conceptualization, or understanding) of quarks is not "inevitable" or "determined by the nature of things"." You are using the first reading, I am using the second. The fact that you cannot distinguish the two readings is a fault of your own capacity for understanding, and is causing you to misunderstand my argument rather badly.
Now you want to talk about trees and rocks and quarks? 😂 Where is the answer to my question? Ms. Amateur Biologist, you said "Gender is a Social Construct"didn't you? Then prove it.
There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the two biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence be a "social construct"?
How can a concept be a social construct if it was never "constructed" to be begin with and existed without the need of sophisticated intelligence? 🤔
Quarks have existed longer than gender, yet quarks are a social construct. Gender is far more variable than quarks or rocks, and far more dependent on cultural whims (pink being girly, women wearing dresses). Look, if you refuse to understand this concept then I can't help you. I've explained several times now that social constructs are not the physical objects but rather our understanding of them, but you seem to be incapable of understanding that, and thus you keep repeating the same tired old argument over and over.
Not that you're right about quarks existing longer than gender, but that what difference does it make? That doesn't answer my Q. And not that the examples you stated are cultural whims, but gender doesn't depend on "cultural whims" it's depended on your biological sex.
Back on the topic, the only tired old argument is the nonsense you spewing without being able to back it up. You can explain "social constructs are not the physical objects but rather our understanding of them" but that doesn't it make it true. Hell, that's not even what social construct mean. I keep asking the same Qs because you avoid answering it and I'm not going to let that happen.
Everything you're saying about gender, social constructs, and concepts are all personal liberal opinions rather than factual, therefore I'm going to refuse accepting it until you can make your position intellectually accurate (judging by the comments nobody else will as well). I want an answer to my question. Answer the question!
That is what social construct means. Again, go read the wikipedia page. We're back to you wanting to believe that your own personal definition of something must be the only correct one. I'm sorry you don't want things to be defined in a way that makes you wrong, but as it happens the world doesn't revolve around you, and you are not the supreme arbiter of the English language.
Again you'e making me repeat myself. Please quote my exact words on where I used my own personal definition as to what social construct means? I'll wait..
There's one definition for social construct (I already read the wikipage and it's the same definition only in detail) Here it is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-construct
The only one with personal definitions here is YOU. Ask me to explain anything on gender not being a social construct and I will do so. I ask you ONE question and you are unable to answer. Use that garbage you just told me on yourself and answer my question.
There are distinct set of general roles/responsibilities/standards for only the two biological sexes (not only in human beings but in animals). How can something that has existed since the beginning of time before civilization even began, and that is present throughout the entire planet without the need of sophisticated intelligence, be a "social construct"?
You keep using social construct as if it means something entirely invented by society. It doesn't. It means a concept or category invented by society, even if that concept reflects the physical world, as with the concept "rock" referring to physical rocks. If you have read the wikipedia page, you clearly don't understand it, as it makes that quite clear. Thus, when discussing social constructs, it is not the physical thing itself that we are discussing (for instance actual physical sex) but rather the way society defines/categorizes that thing (so how we decide what defines a sex, and the concept of "sex").
The argument for social constructionism is really just that the way we percieve and categorize the world is influenced by society. That the reason a palm tree is considered a tree is not because of something inherent about it, but rather that we call it a tree and therefor it is one. Can you tell me why you don't think that is the case?
That is literally what social construct means. The garbage you're talking about isn't on any definition for "social construct" you can possibly find. Anywhere. You are WRONG. And you've failed to prove otherwise.
Many things such as time to measuring quantities and mathematical equations are social constructs, since the possibility to find different ways to read time and study math/science exists. Physical things that are already there cannot be socially constructed because they're already there. Rock remains rock and (hard in quality) regardless of our understanding of it. By your logic, if society decides today a rock must be soft and malleable like mud, then that's what a rock magically becomes? That's beyond absurd.
You can decide there are 60+ genders and that you can pick and chose your gender at your convenience today, but that doesn't change the fact that there are only TWO genders, and all the other genders you socially constructed are what you call "social constructs".
The reason I disagree with what you said about a palm tree is because what a palm tree is doesn't depend on our understanding of it. Palm tree = An unbranched evergreen tree with a crown of long feathered or fan-shaped leaves.
We can change the name to something but all that does is change the name we give it, it remains an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves. We can decide a palm tree is a pine tree and a pine tree is a palm tree, but all that does is relocate the definition, an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves remains an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves. It doesn't matter what concept we place on it.
If we decide today that an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves is just a social constructs, the same way liberal society did with gender, and we say and evergreen leaf with fan-shaped leaves is really a coniferous plant with thorns, that's WRONG and that doesn't change that an evergreen tree with fan-shaped leaves remains exactly as it is.
What I said: "a concept or category invented by society, even if that concept reflects the physical world" What your definition said: "a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice"
The concept of "rock" is a social construct, because what physical objects we call rocks is a social construct. And yes, if society decides that the term "rock" means something squishy, then that's what "rock" means, it just that the term no longer refers to the objects previously referred to as rocks.
How about another example? Planets. Pluto used to be a planet, now it's not. It's not that anything about Pluto changed, nor that planets in general changed, but that our definition for planet did.
*something else *social construct *an evergreen
Are your reading skills legitimately this bad? I must have stated at least five times by now that "social construct" doesn't refer to the physical object itself, but to the category we place that object in, a category which we define the definition to. Planets are a social construct because we define what a planet is, thus why things which were once planets can become something else.
That's not my definition sweetheart that is textbook dictionary definition. What you said is what is a personal definition. Here it is: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-construct
The physical objects we call rocks remain what they are regardless of what we call them. Rock = Solid mineral. We can decide a rock is play doh (squishy) and play doh is rock, all that does is relocate the definition for rock, that doesn't magically change a solid mineral to a soft solid.
The reason Pluto is no longer a "planet" is because of astronomical scientific advancement that help us understand what is a planet and what is not. Therefore we do not *define* what a planet is, that's absurd, we *learn* to understand what is a planet and what is not with astronomical advancement.
Today we understand Pluto is a "dwarf planet" since it lacks certain criteria all other "planets"
have (https://www. nasa. gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-pluto-k4. html)
* www.nasa.gov/.../what-is-pluto-k4.html
What is your definition exactly? Put it in your own words.
The reason Pluto is no longer a planet is because we changed what "planet" means to exclude Pluto, because we had to choose between excluding Pluto and including a bunch of other celestial bodies. We literally changed the definition of planet, look it up.
Unlike you I don't make personal definitions on things that already exist. Social Construct is exactly what any textbook dictionary definition describes it to be.
& You're wrong about Pluto, despite me giving you a link from the organisation that makes these classifications themselves. Nobody changed what "planet" means to exclude Pluto, because pluto is classified as a "dwarf planet":
* www.nasa.gov/.../what-is-pluto-k4.html
Just as I explained with your example for rock. What makes something a planet has never changed, we simply learn to understand what is a planet and what isn't.
* https://www.space.com/25986-planet-definition.html
For ex: At one point it was thought that the moon was a planet. Further research on planets helped us to learn what is a moon (the natural satellite of a planet) and understanding that planets orbit around the sun and what orbits around planets are moons.
So you don't actually know what a social construct is, you just think the way I'm using it isn't wholly accurate. Honey, if you don't understand the concept, how can you think I'm wrong about it? And if you do understand the concept, you should be able to put it into your own words so I can understand where your understanding of it differs from my own.
There was no such thing as a dwarf planet prior to 2006. The term was created when the definition for planet was changed to exclude Pluto.
Even the article you cited says the definition was changed. "While many people can point to a picture of Jupiter or Saturn and call it a "planet," the definition of this word is much more subtle and has changed over time. Many astronomers decided on a new definition in 2006 after the discovery of several worlds at the fringes of the solar system"
I'm not thinking anything, you are wrong about the way you're using "social construct". Social construct = A social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society. That's what it means, therefore it doesn't matter what perspective wither of us draw from that.
The reason the definition of planet *changes* is because of what we learn to further understand on planets through astronomical advancement. Pluto got reclassed once it no longer met the criteria for "planet" and is now known as a "dwarf planet", the very same way our moon got reclassed from "planet" to "moon" in the past.
* www.nationalgeographic.com/.../
We are not defining what a planet is ourselves rather we are learning to understand what a planet is and are correcting ourselves.
* gizmodo.com/everyplace-we-used-to-think-was-a-planet-until-we-knew-1726072753
*
Okay, quote my definition of social construct and explain how and why it does not square with the one you are using then.
The reason the definition for planet changed is because we changed it. There was literally a meeting in 2006 where scientists got together and created a new definition for "planet". It was new information that led us to make that change, but not because that new information made our previous definition invalid, but rather because it made that definition less useful such that we required new more specific definitions. Prior to 2006, ""cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit" wasn't a requirement for being a planet. That requirement was added for the explicit purpose of excluding Pluto and other celestial bodies which would have otherwise been planets. We didn't discover the requirement, we created it.
Read the part about Pluto on the last link and you'll see exactly why Pluto is no longer classed as a planet (it even explains moons we thought were planets until we knew better).
That clearly explains we aren't changing definitions at our convenience, we only update definitions after we learn more. You cannot *change* definitions... If we haven't figured out everything about a certain topic we update a definition as we learn more. And if you decide to *change* a specific definition, that only makes you wrong. That's it hun. Sorry.
We do update definitions after we learn more. But we still update those definitions, we don't discover them. We could have just as easily updated the definition of planet to include Pluto and the other dwarf planets, and that would have been just as correct.
What is wrong is that you aren't using "social construct" the way is is described. For ex, you said: "The concept 'tree' is a social construct, even if trees physically exist." That's wrong because something such as time is a social construct, "tree" isn't because "tree" isn't a reflection of what we perceive since perception can be subjective. "Tree" is absolute reality.
& As for Pluto. "Clearing the neighboorhood" = For a planet to be the dominant gravitational body in their orbit around the sun. It's absurd for you to say we can simply create "cleared neighborhoods" if we decide it. Again, It's through astronomical advancement we learn that all 8 other planets "have cleared their neighborhoods" and we update our definition for what is a planet accordingly.
Therefore Pluto didn't stop being a planet because we decided that, it NEVER WAS a planet, read the last link I put, it's a dwarf planet and we understand that now. This is not a "social construct". That is absolute reality.
We couldn't have updated the definition of planet to include Pluto because that would have to includes all that orbit on the fringes of the solar system without being the dominant gravitational body in their orbits around the sun as planets where there is a CLEAR undisputed difference between that and the 8 planets that orbits around the sun.
We update our definition to planet accordingly to what we continue to learn about our solar system. We don't pick and chose definitions or else they become intellectually dishonest, just like it would be to include Pluto in the class of planets.
A palm tree being a tree is not an absolute reality. Palm trees could just as easily be categorized as grass as as trees. Again, it's not about the physical object, it's about the category we place it in.
But one planet has not cleared its neighborhood. So the category planet prior to 2006 included celestial bodies that didn't meet that requirement. However, that category was then changed to exclude such bodies. Pluto was a planet prior to 2006, nearly every source you provided says as much.
We absolutely do pick and choose our definitions. The point of a category is not to perfectly reflect the objective world, it is to allow us to understand it. Choosing a different definition for "planet" and creating a new category allowed us more precise understanding of the solar system, thus we did it. However, we could just as easily have redefined things differently, and that still would have been correct.
See if you can find me a single reliable source that says it was "discovered" that Pluto was not a planet, or that Pluto never was a planet.
Also, quote from a guy who chairs the International Astronomical Union (aka the people responsible for redefining planets): "a planet is a culturally defined word that changes over time"
You seriously gonna claim to know more about astronomy than a professional astronomer?
"Palm trees could just as easily be categorized as grass as as trees" That is ridiculously absurd. How palm trees possibly be categorized the same as grass? Are you reading what you're putting down? I don't think you are.
Pluto didn't stop being a planet because we decided that, it never was a planet to begin with, the link i sent you exactly explains that. We believed if was before we learn everything we needed to learn about planets, the same way we believed the moon was.
& The point of description is to perfectly explain (not "reflect") the objective world. Are you reading what you're posting? If we absolutely do pick and choose our definitions and we could just as easily have redefined things differently, and that still would have been correct then why hasn't that ever been done before? Please give me the description of something (ex: time) differently than we have it right now and have it be intellectually accurate.
Palm trees have more in common genetically with grass than with other trees. So if you're going just by genetics, it'd make for sense to call them grass than to call them trees.
Your article isn't scientific, and doesn't actually say what you claim, actually supporting my position rather better. "The debate over what is a planet is long and ongoing, evolving with our changing understanding of the world around us. It reflects how we prioritize the intrinsic properties of a world and what we understand about the importance of circumstance and history of how the world came to be. Our solar system might have just four planets and leftover debris, or the planets might number in the hundreds including asteroids, dwarf planets, and the Kuiper Belt Objects we’ve yet to discover." Aka planet is not an objective category, but a man-made one.
Things have been redefined plenty. Pluto being reclassified is an example of changing definitions. Another example is different cultures having different color words and a different amount of colors. Another is how different races have been redefined (like irish people being considered a different race than most white people).
I already did its right here: gizmodo.com/everyplace-we-used-to-think-was-a-planet-until-we-knew-1726072753 It explains that having we understood "clearing neighborhoods" Pluto was declassed fom "planet" to "dwarf planet".
When did I ever claim I know more than him? I'm proving exactly what he is saying.
Cul·ture = The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.
Since the definition for planet changed through astronomical advancement through future generations it is culturally define. I explained about five times now that the moon was believed to be a planet until we understood better did I not? You're the one claiming to know more than him!
Everything that is regarded as fact is perfectly accurate. Everything. We learn in basic math to use "=" for absolute answer, "≈" for approximate answers to get us closer to the truth and "≠" for what is not an equal/absolute answer. This is used throughout all intellectual fields.
Palm tree is a giant grass but it's still it isn't the same as turf grass, hence two distinctive descriptions. But now you're going in circles again. Even if you change the name for palm trees that doesn't change the fact that an evergreen plant (what we call palm tree) with fan-shaped leaves is an evergreen plant with fan-shaped leaves. You cannot change that description.
And everything I put down is scientific or containing scientific info. how does what you quote prove anything rather than exactly what it explains which is that the definition for planet changes through astronomical advancement through future generations that we continue to make?
Even If we find out something specific that makes for the criteria of a planet (Ex: inhabited by life) which makes Earth the ONLY planet in our solar system, that would mean that all the other "planets" were never planets to begin with and we'd update our definition accordingly. That is the opposite of defining Earth at our convenience.
Pluto is not an example since Pluto was never a planet.
Different color words aren't an example either. Different color words for blue doesn't mean that #ThisColor changes with every definition, what is #Blue is absolute reality, we can put different names on it but that has not effect on what #Blue is.
You can't use race as an example since it IS a social construct. First of all all "race" is a social term. That is hardly ever used in scientific circles, "species" is what is used. Second, race is a social term used for people of different skin tone and hair that's all it is. Three, all human being have 99.9% identical DNA.
I said earlier that social construct can be freely define by society since that's exactly what they are, concepts constructed by society. Have I not? "Race" only came into existence after we constructed it within our societies. All human beings are one specie (and that isn't a social construct that is absolute reality).
But we call it a tree. So why's it a tree?
All of what I quote is either from scientific sources or from the same sources you're using.
I mean it'd mean that all the other planets were never planets by the current definition, but they were planets once in terms of past definitions of planet. But the point is, what a planet is is changeable based on society's idea of what is a planet. Do you agree with that point?
Look, even you admit that there is a distinction between the categories we place on things and the physical things themselves. The category "tree" is a social construct. The physical tree is not. Social constructs are the categories, the meanings placed on objects, not the physical objects themselves.
Okay fine let's call it grass. That doesn't change the fact that an evergreen plant with fan-shaped leaves is an evergreen plant with fan-shaped leaves.
If you had any scientific basis on anything you were saying you would be right. None of what you said had any basis whatsoever and is completely intellectually dishonest.
You even claim that we simply to place "categories" to help us "understand things better". But tha couldn't be further from the truth... Everything mathematicians and scientists (and all other intellectuals) do is find absolute answer to the objective world (if there are approximate and rough answers we continue to learn and update out knowledge until we find the absolute answer).
& No. I don't agree with that point because it's wrong. Society cannot define what a planet is. By your logic a middle schooler who believes the chemical composition for all carbohydrates are the same is right (since that's how he understands it due to basic middle school knowledge)?
Glucose fructose and sucrose are all carbohydrate and all have different chemical compositions. By your logic all carbohydrates are identically composed since that's as far as middle school knowledge expands. And then carbohydrates magically all form different compositions once we understand them better at the high school level, since WE define what carbohydrates are and carbohydrates are only "social constructs"... That is intellectually dishonest.
The chemical composition of carbohydrates never has and never will change, our knowledge of carbs is what changes and we understand that all carbs are differently composed. This very same thing applies to astronomical advancement and "planets".
This very same thing applies to gender. There are two gender only and that will never change. All the other "genders" what are "socially constructed". The very same way if communities of middle schoolers redefined carbs today, that's what would be the social construct. NOTHING changes about carbs.
Wow you really can't get this through your skull can you? It's not about the thing itself changing, it's about what we call it and how we categorize it being subjective. You yourself have acknowledged that that's the case, but somehow you can't seem to understand that that's what social constructionism is about.
I have never acknowledged that at any point. Ever. I've said over and over than the names give things does not change the thing itself. And that everything mathematical and scientific (and anything intellectual) we categorize are done objectively.
& Subjectivity does not make something intellectually accurate, objectivity is what does. If society collectively decided that carbohydrates all are identically composed. That doesn't make society right since that's how we subjectively categorize carbohydrates. All carbohydrates are differently composed and that is absolute reality.
This very same thing applies to gender. There are two genders that is absolute reality the same way all carbohydrates are differently composed. The indefinite number of "genders" that liberal society has decided on is what is a social construct, the same way if it would be if society decided all carbs are identically composed (despite them all being differently composed).
*names we give *done so
Kiddo, when even one of the actual astronomers involved in the reclassification of Pluto disagrees with you, you've gotta accept you're wrong. As I've said, I doubt you can find a single reputable source claiming that we "discovered" that Pluto isn't a planet, or that Pluto was never a planet. Pretty much every source says that it lost its planet status, not that we were wrong about its status.
Look, things don't sort themselves into categories. Palm trees aren't naturally of the class "tree", they only are because we decided they are. Social constructs are what we call things. Social constructs are the labels and meanings we apply to the world in an effort to better understand and organize it. "Tree" is not an absolute reality in that what kinds of plants fit into the category "tree" is not objective, as demonstrated by palm trees being considered trees.
I believe that they is just only 2 genders male and female. Males have penis and females have vaginas.
You're conflating sex with gender.
Yes i am i have a penis so im male. If someone has a penis and thinks they a female they still male but remember that is my opinion.
Yes, that's your opinion. You have a definition of gender that apparently relies exclusively on external genetalia, which is all well and good, but your definition is still not the scientific one nor the "correct" one. It's like if you decided that for you, to be a tree something needs to have green leaves, so trees with purple leaves (plum trees for instance) or trees without leaves were not trees. You can have that definition, but it's not the "correct" one if you intend to use it to communicate with others.
Thank you for such eye opener, however, I thought that I will read somethings related to the common behaviors between the M&F like why some men are very soft in handling like girls and why do some female have a voice of male and a like.
Gender is a spook.
Gender bending to indoctrinate others , to become pro-choice and to use politically-correct scientific notations in the attempt to affiliate others as you are , is what your intentions are here.
Not at all. I merely intend to explain how I view the world and what the term social construct means in this sort of context.
This is how we view you viewing the world.
Well you can view it that way all you like, it still ain't accurate.
I don't expect you to be honest...
Okay? I don't really care what you do or don't expect me to be.