Question for social progressives about gender verse race social construct

173118_1232610285099_full.jpg

Hah, yeah, if you got a hair and makeup dept and only have to see people once they've done their work on you every day.

Point is gender has zero physical markers where as race, not always, but often, does.
 
You're confusing race and culture again.

Both are sliding scales also, stop trying to be so black and white about it.

Right, but I think you are missing my point. So from a standpoint of genetic race, at what % is one kicked out the club?

If the answer is none, then at what % are you included in the club, 1/1024?

If you can't answer either of these questions then you are talking about race as a culture.
 
Right, but I think you are missing my point. So from a standpoint of genetic race, at what % is one kicked out the club?

If the answer is none, then at what % are you included in the club, 1/1024?

If you can't answer either of these questions then you are talking about race as a culture.

No, race is not socially communicated, just identification with it is. Culture is an entirely socially communicated phenomenon.

It's a sliding scale, like intelligence, one is not just either smart or stupid but also somewhere in-between where subjective impression is more important. Or if IQ is too triggering think of hair colour.

The truth is that classifications have porous borders.

Answering your question specifically: it really depends on when most people agree you are in PR out of the club, most people being those of the group you care about the opinion of.
 
No, race is not socially communicated, just identification with it is. Culture is an entirely socially communicated phenomenon.

It's a sliding scale, like intelligence, one is not just either smart or stupid but also somewhere in-between where subjective impression is more important. Or if IQ is too triggering think of hair colour.

The truth is that classifications have porous borders.

Answering your question specifically: it really depends on when most people agree you are in PR out of the club, most people being those of the group you care about the opinion of.

So a person that is 90% Anglo, and 10% African, but ends up looking black, because that is how genes work sometimes, is what race exactly?
 
So both?

So you think Elizabeth Warren is a native American?
So both?

So you think Elizabeth Warren is a native American?

Well, thankyou very much for getting me to find out who she is. I have no idea because I didn't see any hard data on tbe matter but I'd suggest she looks to be a lot less native American than she isn't.

That's just speculation though, her DNA record no doubt gave the breakdown.
 
Hah, yeah, if you got a hair and makeup dept and only have to see people once they've done their work on you every day.

Point is gender has zero physical markers where as race, not always, but often, does.
I won't say gender has ZERO markers, but of course it is much easier to become a passable trans than assume another race.
Race is 100% born quality, which is easilly identified genetically. And culture is a social construct of course. I mostly agree with you on this point and posted Kirk Lazarus just for lulz.
 
That's just it, someone can have 85%+ European admixture but if those dominant African genes they have with melanin and curly hair are obvious, they are fucking black. If you think about it for a couple minutes it becomes obvious we don't classify races strictly by DNA content.

That's true although the genetics tend to manifest themselves in visual indicators. There is of course plenty of grey area around the edges of such large groupings, like your example where someone may inherit the visual aspects from their 15%.

But in a general sense the groupings are perceivable having to do with their genetics. Of course visual indicators are the only thing the average person has to go on (unless they are specifically aware of a persons background) and genetic differences are way more complex than that.
 
I got a question for any social progressives here. The Elizabeth Warren fiasco got me to thinking. Why are social progressives pushing the idea that gender is a social construct, but not race?

Let me expand a bit here. Gender as in X and Y chromosome, is science. There are 2 genders. Gender roles however, what it means to be a man, or women, that is a social construct.

Now, with race, the same can be said. There is genetic race, and their is racial identity. Most of the world genetically is a mutt, and yet we talk about race as if white has a definition. At what % from your DNA test, are you kicked out of team white people, or team black people?

See, in the way race and gender are usually talked about, they are social constructs, and not scientific definitions.

So why don't we hear the talk about race being a social construct?

Is the answer as simple as intersectionalism, or is it that racial intersectionalism isn't politically viable for dems, and yet gender is?

If that is the latter, I might have to think about becoming a white nationalist over being associated in any way with social progressives, and the DNC. That would be the definition of social corrosion for the sake of political gain.

Discuss.........


No need to bring race into this at all. Social progressives, when they get to the point where they deny the reality of genetics and body parts have lost their fucking minds. That's it and that is all. It is just plain stupid.
 
I guess it is acceptable because a native chief put the headdress on him. It would be like a black guy putting the blackface makeup on a white person making him an honorary black man.

An Indian Chief puts the headdress on Trudeau and then takes a traditional selfie. The selfie is a sacred ritual which has been passed down through generations.

trudeau_ceremonial_chief_20160304.jpg

Me take'em selfie
 
Many gender roles, gender norms and gender based behaviors are genetically hardwired and can be seen throughout the animal kingdom, especially in mammals. It goes way beyond obvious outwardly physical features like genitalia, size, muscle mass, bone structure etc and we are no different.

If you truly believe the nonsense you have posted here then you are pretty much on par with a flat eather.
Our biological traits influenced our gender roles unquestionably. Males tend to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive so it's pretty obvious why they became the fighters. Likewise, in a natural setting, when women are pregnant they become more vulnerable to outside attack so it's obvious why they've been so often viewed as requiring protection.

However, the majority of those traits and roles are important in a natural setting, but almost all of mankind lives in a man-made environment which is very different. If we followed all of our genetically hard-wired behavior then we'd still hiding in caves at night and hunting and gathering during the day.

There are an awful lot of gender roles and rules that a good portion of society clings to that aren't backed up in anyway by biology, and those are the ones that are completely constructs of society. For example, there is no biological impetus for males being the sole breadwinners of a household. It was merely a convenient policy supported by a society which had enough prosperity to make it work. However, society has changed, most families require two incomes in order to stay financially stable, and women are allowed to live their lives as professionals who either wait to get married or never get married if they so desire.
 
That's just it, someone can have 85%+ European admixture but if those dominant African genes they have with melanin and curly hair are obvious, they are fucking black. If you think about it for a couple minutes it becomes obvious we don't classify races strictly by DNA content.

In more than 99% of cases we do though.
 
There are an awful lot of gender roles and rules that a good portion of society clings to that aren't backed up in anyway by biology, and those are the ones that are completely constructs of society. For example, there is no biological impetus for males being the sole breadwinners of a household. It was merely a convenient policy supported by a society which had enough prosperity to make it work. However, society has changed, most families require two incomes in order to stay financially stable, and women are allowed to live their lives as professionals who either wait to get married or never get married if they so desire.

Again, another claim that's ignorant of what an entire field says on the matter. Men are the "bread-winners" predominantly because women are sexually selecting men on their ability to accrue resources, which when pair bonded provide those resources to her progeny.

The fact that women are going out and working is an economic issue. Women are still attracted to the males able to gain the resources and status. Men have other criteria.

So yeah there's biology to back up the psychology.
 
Scientifically there’s no such thing as “race”, so it is a social construct

Sex/gender on the other hand is well define n is a scientific reality

You have males (yx) with male organs

You have females (xx) with female organs

N occasionally there are malformation n a person is born with both sexes, however they are sterile

Now physical male claiming to be a woman n vice versa is something different. We’re talking about mental issues similar to schizophrenia
 
Both are constructs, neither is important, racial groups are more selective about who they let in the club than gender groups. For whatever reason, people have very strong feelings about their race, and those feelings require recognition of the relative worth of other races, getting in the way of crossover.
 
Again, another claim that's ignorant of what an entire field says on the matter. Men are the "bread-winners" predominantly because women are sexually selecting men on their ability to accrue resources, which when pair bonded provide those resources to her progeny.

The fact that women are going out and working is an economic issue. Women are still attracted to the males able to gain the resources and status. Men have other criteria.

So yeah there's biology to back up the psychology.
In our society the women are free to choose who they're "sexually selecting" as you so inarticulately put it. Yes, some make choices based on that. Many do not. Unlike other animals, humans have the ability to make their own decisions on the criteria they want. Some women choose never to marry or never to have children.

You're probably going to sit here and take women's agency and choice completely out of the picture and try and talk about their decisions like they're made completely by biological instinct while exempting or excusing yourself from such trappings.
 
Back
Top