What you've actually done every single time (and I've checked) you've used the term 'social construction' in our discussion, you've assumed that my account of them is the same as your account of them. — fdrake

No, I provided the definition of social construction from your source - Google. You provided definitions of "gender" as a social construction, but never clarified what you meant by "social construction", so I went to your source and provided it for you. You are contradicting yourself if you suddenly don't like your own source of definitions when it doesn't fit your convoluted sense of the relationship between sex and some assumption about one's sex. Remember that you confused the sex terms of male and female with your supposed gender terms of man and woman?

And you insist on this so much that you're committed to the belief that the UN has no freakin' clue what the definitions it uses mean. — fdrake

Does the UN create social constructions for all the other cultures of the world? Is Iran going to use that same definition that the UN is using? The UN is a political entity, not a scientific one. This is a scientific issue, not a political one. That's part of your problem.

If you bracket your assumptions above, you're way more likely to see my account as internally consistent. — fdrake

The following isn't consistent.

The general reputation of social constructions is that they have very little to do with anything material; — fdrake

No, institutions are social constructions and are not just ideas. We do not think the law into being, we must act and think together to bring it about. Corporate persons are not ideas, they are legal persons, which are social constructions in the above sense. — fdrake

So, do social constructions involve material things, like people and their actions, or are they just ideas that stay in our heads?

I should clarify that my position is that the distinction between "physical"/"material" and "mental"/"ideas" is incoherent. Ideas are causal just as much as any action. So our assumptions can cause us to treat people differently, and not only that but they are also about the world itself.

This is true, but one wonder's how Boris Johnson's spleen constrains his politics. Also see above points. This joke illustrates your all too hasty collapse of social ontology into individuals' bodies. — fdrake

How does this address anything that I've said? We don't have shared assumptions about people with or without spleens. We have share assumptions about people with vaginas and penises. If we assumed certain behaviors of people that have spleens as opposed to those without that have nothing to do with them having a spleen or not, we would be engaging in spleenism, as opposed to sexism. So if we assumed that Boris should wear boots because he has a spleen and all others who had their spleen removed should wear sneakers, then what does your style of shoes have to do with you having a spleen or not? Is it okay for Boris to wear sneakers and announce that he feels like he doesn't have spleen when his CT scan shows that he does? Is it okay for Boris to announce that he is identifies with being spleenless when he wears sneakers? Doesn't that reinforce spleenism?

I already pointed out the difference between assumptions and expectations of others that are shared, which qualifies them as social constructions per your own source of definitions, and assumptions and expectations of others that are not shared - that are from the individual -and would not qualify as a social construction.

What is a social construction? What does it mean to be sexist? — Harry Hindu


So just because I find this interesting. — fdrake

I've asked those questions numerous times and you're just now finding it interesting?

I take a naturalistic view on social construction. That might seem like a contradiction in terms, but it's quite a defensible thesis. — fdrake

You win a gold metal for the mental gymnastics, fdrake.

The general reputation of social construction is the kind of thing you'd expect to see on Tumblr or out of the mouths of over zealous social anthropology under graduates: "Morality is just a social construction!", without ever explaining what a social construction is, this 'just' is the operative word, not the 'social construction' part. — fdrake

I see the exact same thing of leftists throwing about this claim that "gender is a social construction", without ever explaining what a social construction is. It's why I've had to ask the question several times of you - that you are just now finding interesting. :brow:

The general reputation of social constructions is that they have very little to do with anything material; this conception sees them as they're cultural artefacts, floating social facts, generated by the aggregate of individual assumptions and perception we have about shared practices. You can turn the causal structure on its head and get the same idea; the cultural artefacts and floating social facts generate the aggregate of individual assumptions and perceptions we have about shared practices.

You seem to want to situate identity in either of these conceptions; either individual identities partake in the generation of social conditions; as if they are prior to them; or social conditions partake in the generation of identities. You also seem to insist on a purity of definition, social constructions and identities and never the twain shall meet, based on your metaphysical intuitions about social constructions and identities.

In opposition to this, I see it reciprocally; people partially construct social stuff, social stuff partially constructs people. It's a blending on all levels; a reciprocal dependence that undermines any demand for their scission. There are points of overlap, and processes outside of the two.

I'd like you to bracket and articulate these assumptions so we can discuss them. We'd probably make more progress that way than talking cross purposes. — fdrake

If social constructions have very little to do with anything material, then how is it that they influence our social behaviors?

Social constructions are ideas about the physical world. They can be expectations or assumptions of some physical person. We all have certain functions and limitations based on our physiology. When these expectations and assumptions begin to split from from those actual functions and limitations, they come racist, sexist, etc. They being to force people into boxes that that have nothing to do with their physiological functions and limitations, yet they are based on those functions and limitations. Saying that blacks are criminals because they are black is racist because it is an assumption about a person based on the color of their skin - their physiology. It is an illogical assumption because the color of one's skin doesn't make one a criminal. One's actions do, and one simply needs to point to all the whites in prison to show that one's skin color doesn't make one a criminal. One's skin color has nothing to do with being a criminal, yet their skin color is being cited as the reason for being a criminal.

The same goes for sexism. It is sexist to put men and women in assumed boxes based on their sex, yet have nothing to do with their functions and limitations as a particular sex. It is a social construction (and sexist) to assume that women need to wear dresses to be a woman, or that men need to wear pants to be men, just as it is sexist to say that women shouldn't be boxing, or shouldn't be joining the military, or that men shouldn't cry. These are assumptions based on one's sex, that have nothing to do with one's functions and limitations as a particular sex. So when a man comes along and claims to be a woman when wearing a dress, it reinforces those sexist assumptions. Why can't he just be a man in a dress?

Social constructions are shared assumptions - meaning that they are social, not individual feelings. They exist as shared expectations, which is to say that you and I both would agree on this expectation, not that we would both have different views, much less complete polarizing expectations. Different, or polarizing expectations would not qualify as a social construction. So for someone to come along and say that they assume the opposite - that men wearing a dress makes one a woman - they aren't sharing the same expectation as the culture they are part of. They are still making an assumption based on sex that has nothing to do with sex and is therefore sexist! So you can still be sexist without it being a social construction. Individuals can make up their own assumptions about people that differ from their culture, but that isn't a social construction. It is an individual belief.

A great example would be religion. Religion is a social construction and they vary from culture to culture. One religion claims that Muslims aren't true believers. Muslims claim that Christians are infidels. They assume the opposite thing, both of which are socially constructed, yet both are wrong. A Muslim within a Christian culture would assume the opposite of the social construction, yet their assumption is just as wrong as the social construction.

When a man claims to identify with the "identity" of a woman when wearing a dress, what they are calling an "identity" is an illogical and sexist assumption of one's real identity. It's not really an identity at all. It is an assumption, or an expectation, of one's real identity. Instead of agreeing with the sexist assumption, we should tell them that it is sexist and that it is okay to wear a dress and still be a man, and that it is okay to cry and still be a man.

Maybe we should just abolish the social construction that humans should wear clothes. :grin: Then "cisgenders" wouldn't have to worry about what's in someone's underwear. It would be plain to see. The expectations that we have of the sexes makes it easier for "cisgenders" to recognize each other before getting to the bedroom. Even gays have a problem distinguishing between men and women if men dressed as women and women dressed as men. So even though it is sexist, it is useful for most humans to recognize each other in cultures where wearing clothes are a mandatory, strictly enforced social construction. Abolish clothes and you are on the way to abolishing gender and sexist social constructions.

My point is that your account of sex is just another layer of these sexist assumptions. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, sexist assumptions are assumptions that have nothing to do with one's sex - like what kind of clothes you should wear and what kind of job you should have because of your sex. It is sexist to say that women shouldn't be able to join the military. It isn't sexist to say that women have vaginas.

What does anyone any one need a penis to be a man, a womb to be a woman?

There are no "real biological idenities" because they fact of an identity is a different to existence of a biologcal feature. Such a notion of real biological identities are just another sexist assumption about about a body and how it belongs. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What does anyone need a dangling anatomy between one's legs that urinates and fertilizes women's wombs to have a "penis"? We don't need words to categorize the world. We don't need words to notice the similarities and differences between people. We simply need eyes and a brain. We only need words if we want to communicate those differences and similarities to other people. I don't need the words "penis", "vagina", "man", "woman" etc. to notice the similarities between certain body parts on different individuals and how others share different body parts, but there are only two groups. I don't notice anyone with a completely different body part than the two that I see on everyone. We don't have three, four, or even ten different kinds of sex organs. We only have two.

Just as an identity is not one's hair or dress, it is not one's biological features either. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then why do people claim to have an identity of man or woman based on their style of dress and hair? You seem to be denying the existence of gender as an identity.

No, it's about what you think. What is a social construction? What does it mean to be sexist? I have already explained myself. Explain yourself.

You're still skipping the issue. What is a social construction?

We already went over how one gets various identities. Your problem is that you are confusing biological real identities (being born with certain body parts and functions) with SHARED ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THOSE IDENTITIES. Shared assumptions are not identities that one can assume for themselves, but are identities that are assumed by others about the individual, and our assumptions about people aren't always accurate. Isn't this the problem of generalizing people and putting them in boxes based on how they dress? Isn't that the definition of being biased and sexist?

No, it's that magic thing about money: if you have it, you can be any damn thing you want to be. — frank

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Harry, I've never thought that sex is a social construct. — fdrake

That wasn't the problem I said that you have. Another problem you have is that you don't pay attention.

Our identities are social constructions. You seem to.misundertand what I mean by social constuction. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're not paying attention either.

If identities are socially constructed, then that means that they are identities that are given by others, or assumed by others, not by an individual by themselves.

You are mistaking your notion of sex for the body. As I said earlier, you are reasoning backwards. Instead of working from bodies which occur and are observed, you are trying to define what bodies exist by your expectation of what they must have. Deers don't need to be male to have antlers, humans don't need to be female to have breasts. For either to have a body, they only need existence of that body. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No. I make observations and notice that many bodies share similar features and functions to the point where 99.9% fit neatly into two categories. There are anomalies in nature because natural selection doesn't plan ahead. What does it mean to be an anomaly? It means that you don't fit neatly into those two categories that 99.9% of others fit into. It means that you are a different category, not the opposite of one of the other categories. The fact that anomalies exist isn't a good reason to dispose of our categories or to be sexist.
.

Sex has in mind something more tham just difference in anatomy.

When we use sex, we are not dedicated to identifying anatomical parts. We are interested in identifying which people are male and which people are female. It’s why we don’t just point out an anatomical difference by describing their are different anatomical parts. It’s a self-defined identity. Rather than just describing what bodies people have, it’s an attempt to capture our bodies under specific conceptual meanings. Sex is a categorisation of who takes on an identity of male or female. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:roll: The logic is just so bad here.

If gender/sex is a social construction, then it can't be a self-defined identity. It is a socially defined identity - a shared assumption about your sex - that certain sexes are suppose to behave a certain way. That is the reason we want to eliminate social constructions based on sex precisely because they are sexist!

You and fdrake simply don't understand what a social construction is.

And remember when I told you this:

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc. — Harry Hindu

I was recently advised by my employer that some people have variable gender. They just go with how they feel when they wake up. My employer requested that I get used to gender neutral speech so as to avoid offending people accidently.

That's how it works. — frank

Right, which would entail not recognizing or labeling anyone as man, male, woman or female. Essentially we would erase gender/sex and the related terms from our vocabulary. Transgenders want to be recognized as the opposite sex/gender. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Your employer is just jumping on the mass delusion bandwagon. Fortunately, I am my own boss.

You don't do side-stepping very well. :down:

People with male natal sex never have female natal sex.
People with female natal sex never have male natal sex.
People with male natal sex sometimes have female gender identity.
People with male natal sex sometimes have male gender identity.
People with female natal sex sometimes have female gender identity.
People with female natal sex sometimes have male gender identity. — fdrake

Here we go again repeating myself. We're going in circles because you keep forgetting the other points I already made.

If "gender" is a "social construction", then that means that their identity is a shared assumption of others, not personal inclination, and something that they can't change themselves, unless they move to a different culture where people assume different things about one's natal sex.

The anatomical is the body, sex is social. Sex is a category into which someone placed or belongs. To be a man or woman on account of having a certain body is no less a norm than the question of wearing a dress, having long hair or partaking in a certain role in society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sure we categorize the world with words. Sex is an anatomical category, not a social identity. "Sex" refers to those differences of anatomy and their related functions and behaviors that exist in 99.9% organisms of all species that use sex to procreate.

"Man"/"Woman" are terms that refer to differences in species and not just sex.

How is that detailed? How does one move from one circle to another? You're not answering my questions and it looks pitiful. :roll: Just give up fdrake.

It then goes on to say that "especially with reference to social and cultural differences than biological ones." Is it talking about the differences between cultures? I
— Harry Hindu

Sex characteristics are associated with gender archetypes. Gender archetypes are associated with sex characteristics.

Clearer? — fdrake

That didn't answer the question! You have a serious problem with answering questions. How does one change their gender - by changing their sex, culture, or clothes?

Explain the association and correlation between sex and gender in detail. Isn't the association/correlation sexist?

No. Sex is anatomical. Gender is social. — fdrake

Eventually Samantha identifies as a man (gender identity) and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male (see previous bracket). — fdrake

Then why did you say that male is a gender identity? You simply won't answer the question directly because you won't admit that you got confused with your own use of terms.

Sex and gender correlate. The processes that give someone a gender are not the same as the ones that give them a sex. — fdrake

Can you have a gender without having a sex? If not then how does one get a gender - by others labeling them, or by an individual searching their feelings? Is gender a shared assumption about a particular sex, or is it an individual feeling that someone has?

We agree that sex is anatomical, I think. We do not agree that gender is social. If you think that 'women wear dresses' as a norm is governed by anatomical or developmental characteristics, I don't know what to tell you; sperm meets egg => wear pink? — fdrake

NO! That is your position! It is you and transgenders who put women in boxes and labeling them as a "woman" not because of their anatomy, but because of their clothes. Women don't have to wear dresses to be a woman. They are women as a result of how they were born. "Women wear dresses" is the gender binary, sexist position that you have and that transgenders reinforce.

Do you not understand what a homonym is? Words with the same spelling and pronunciation can mean different things depending on context. Sometimes "man"/"male"/"woman"/"female" are used to refer to biological sex and sometimes they're used to refer to gender. — Michael

This isn't the argument that has been made. Go back and read the definitions provided by fdrake.

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. — fdrake

It doesn't make that kind of distinction. Fdrake's definition of "man" and "woman" says that they are sexes. Now is it saying that the sexes are biological, or social in this context? It then goes on to say that "especially with reference to social and cultural differences than biological ones." Is it talking about the differences between cultures? If so, then in order to change your gender, you'd have to change your culture instead of your clothes, and changing your body doesn't seem to entail changing one's sex or gender.

Eventually Samantha identifies as a man (gender identity) and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male (see previous bracket). — fdrake

You just said that both "man" and "male" are gender identities. So you're saying that sex and gender are the same thing and they are both social constructions? Why don't you just answer the questions as I posed them? Repeating the same BS that I'm questioning doesn't move the ball forward.

while simultaneously being aware of which bits are social construction and which aren't to the extent where you're pointing them out as a contradiction? Yeah. I don't think you're confused either, you're just pretending to be — fdrake

Samantha is born a girl with girl bits. Her birth sex is female. Samantha is gender non-conforming. Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. He changes his name to Sam to reflect this. As an adult, Sam has gender identity of male, gender expression of male, but Sam's birth sex was female, Sam's anatomy might still be female; that of Sam's birth sex; and even if Sam did take gender transition surgery or hormone therapy, nothing about that would change that Sam's birth sex was female. — fdrake

Look at the bold text.

Is "male" and "female" sex or gender? Is "man" and "woman" sex or gender? You said that the female is a sex but male is a gender. So either you are confused by your own terms, or gender and sex are the same thing.

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. — fdrake

Here you just provided the definition of "man" and "woman" as sexes. It then goes on to say that the sexes/genders aren't biological, or that sex/gender is a social construction. Is sex and species a social construction, because Googles does define "man" and "woman" as species-specific males and females?

If the differences between gender are cultural, then in order to change your gender, you'd have to change your culture, not your clothes.

Samantha is born a girl with girl bits. Her birth sex is female. Samantha is gender non-conforming. Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. He changes his name to Sam to reflect this. As an adult, Sam has gender identity of male, gender expression of male, but Sam's birth sex was female, Sam's anatomy might still be female; that of Sam's birth sex; and even if Sam did take gender transition surgery or hormone therapy, nothing about that would change that Sam's birth sex was female. — fdrake

Even here, you are talking about changing one's sex, not gender. Male and female are sexes according to you. You seem to be confusing your own distinction between sex and gender. Your distinction was incoherent so it is no surprise that you are confused by your own terms.

If she changes into a male by simply changing what she wears then you are saying that in order to be a male, you have to wear a particular style of clothes. That isn't what Google is saying at all. Google is saying that there are biological sexes in which people have shared assumptions about. Is it your stance that all assumptions are correct?

And whatever happened to your socially constructed family example? Here you are talking about being born as a biological entity instead of being born into a social construction. So your family example is a poor example, and again, you are confusing biological realities with social constructions.

I dunno, I'm going to use my fiat powers to remove you from the collective and now what I'm saying has to be true. — fdrake

Huh -what?

No. Quote me where I said that. — fdrake

It is necessarily implied by your argument. I pointed it out with your quote. Are you blind?

Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. — fdrake

Gender, as defined by your source, is a shared assumption. She identifies with an shared assumption, but her assumption isn't shared by others. Incoherent.

You're also saying that shared assumptions are identities. Incoherent.

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. — fdrake

It says that "gender is either of the two sexes (male and female) especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones."

If gender is either of the two sexes, then gender is biological, yet the definition contradicts itself by saying its in reference to social and cultural differences instead of biological. Incoherent.

And what kind of social and cultural differences is talking about. Differences within a culture or between cultures? Differences within a culture wouldn't be a social construction!

So are you and Google being sexist and claiming that to be a woman, you must wear a dress, makeup and have long-hair?

I don't personally care about whether it's a choice or not. To me that looks like the wrong framing entirely. Harry Hindu is framing things that way, and I'm trying to follow him down his personal rabbit hole and place some landmines. — fdrake

I never said it was a choice. Having a mental or social disorder isn't a choice. Being born a man or woman isn't a choice. It was Artemis that was mentioning that it was a choice.

Now... what if instead of disowning the entire social construction of gender and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a person came to disown the gender associated with their birth sex? — fdrake

Using your own example of a person disowning their socially constructed family, a man can't disown his mother and father and then start calling himself a daughter. It makes no sense, but according to you it does. How?

Using your own source of Google for definitions, "man" and "woman" are biological entities, not social constructions. So it makes no sense to say "man" and "woman" are genders if genders are social constructions and not biological entities.

Using your own source "social constructions" are shared assumptions about reality. If gender were a social construction, then gender isn't "man" or "woman". Those would be the biological realities. The assumptions (and therefore gender) would be "women wear dresses and makeup and have long hair". You are confusing biological realities with shared assumptions about those realities.

Yes, I've heard this somewhere before, that we are actually just entering a new cooldown period of the climate. Can you provide some links to this or is this just my imagination playing tricks on me? — Wallows

I'm trying to look for it but I saw something where before the Industrial Revolution the trend was cooling, but the current rise could offset the next cooling. There are several factors that could lead to a new ice age that could offset the current warming though. Solar activity and slight deviations in Earth's orbit are something that we can't predict to far into the future that can have a larger impact than what human's are doing.

Should we have clean air and water? Sure. Absolutely. Should we study new sources of energy. Absolutely. But we shouldn't be promoting this idea as a crisis in order to raise taxes, which just get passed down to the consumer and hurts the lower and middle classes. We shouldn't be hearing about this mostly from one political party but from a-political, objective, scientists. Why is the media putting their cameras and microphones in the faces of politicians and asking them about climate change rather than asking the scientists themselves? Why are they using children instead of scientists?

Cheers; and as per that thread, the answer is not political, nor economic, neither can provide a solution. The issue is ethical. — Banno

Then it would be subjective.

The issue is scientific.

Who chose her? She's self-appointed and exhibited by the media. — Shamshir

Not to mention that she's not an authority on the topic, and her frontal lobe isn't fully developed yet. But kids are great pawns to use to influence the masses.

I don't understand why we don't see climatologists marching in the streets or see them on the news explaining to everyone the crisis, if it is a crisis.

I don't disagree that CO2 has increased and human activity can be a partial cause. The spike is both a combination of human activity AND other natural causes. The problem is that we don't know how much is the result of human activity, and we only have records (that aren't exact) that go back to when the recent ice age cycle started (that we are still in).

Going to university to learn a trade...

That's the crack in education, right there. — Banno

Sure. Universities are full of cracks, not to mention quacks.

Now... what if instead of disowning the entire social construction of gender and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a person came to disown the gender associated with their birth sex? — fdrake

Then at that point you've crossed the line to it being biological.

Actually, now that I think about it, that equates to disowning the social construction.

If gender is a social construction that is being rejected by an individual, then that makes that individual non-gendered.

Just as you disowning your socially constructed family makes you a non-son and non-daughter, disowning the social construction of gender makes you a non-man and non-woman.

If you are rejecting the social construction, then stop using the terms associated with that social construction.

No, social constructions aren't magic. They're just like being able to disown a family you're born into. You don't disown the hereditary mechanism, that'd be a category error, but you don't belong in a family just because you're born into it; otherwise disowning would be impossible. If you can bend your mind to accept a dictionary definition, or Google's, or the UN's, where gender has socially constructed aspects, I'd be very happy to continue trying to explain word meanings to you. — fdrake

We already went over Google's definition of "man" and "woman" which refers to biological states, not social constructions. So I'm using the same sources as you, so it seems that it is you that can't bend your mind to accept a Google definition.

A social construction can't be rejected by an individual feeling, or else it's not a social construction.

Wikipedia, which Google puts up at the top of the search page when searching "social construction", so Google is promoting Wiki's definitions:

Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. — Wikipedia

So a social construction is jointly constructed and form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. I don't see any room here for a social construction to be rejected. I can see how you can not participate in a social construction, and abandoning one's socially constructed family would effectively leave you without a family - of you not participating in the social construction any longer, so why would you still call yourself a son/daughter? Why do transgenders insist on using the socially constructed terms if they are rejecting it?

Now, let's imagine a world where we have this mystical new word called 'gender_H', — fdrake

Your use of "mystical" says it all. Is gender some supernatural, magical thing now? I can reject mystical things simply based on the fact that there is no proof of such things.

But how can you disown the socially constructed version? I thought there wasn't one! — fdrake

I never said there wasn't one. I said that they're different types of relationships - genetic and social - and that we're not talking about the same one. Why do you think that is?

Again, it goes back to how you define gender as being biological or social. We've already shown that "man" and "woman" are terms that refer to one's biology. So that makes "gender" a biological term, not a social one.

When a naked woman says she feels like a woman, is she referring to her social role, or her biological state?

When a naked man says that he feels like a woman, is he referring to his social role, or his biological state?

If he only feels like a woman when wearing a dress, then how is it that the naked woman and man with a dress feel the same thing? Are they referring to two different things? Why the discrepancy?

The whole point was, if you don't recall, that family is based on actions and social roles rather than just genetics.

If we can assert that I can become part of a family without being genetically related to them, and if I can stop being part of a family I am genetically related to, then it's an action and choice-based social role. — Artemis

We're talking about two different kinds of familial relationships. My point was that you don't need a government or culture to create the biological family relationship that is inherent in nature. You can only disown the socially constructed version.

Privileges are based on values. It is only a privilege if you value it. Values are subjective.

(a) without critically looking at the many data collection/reporting issues that can make the statistics unreliable, misrepresentative, or even make crucial data unobtainable,

(b) while making very dubious assumptions about connections between different statistics,

(c) while making very dubious assumptions about causes/motivations of anything behind the statistics. — Terrapin Station

or (d) don't include the detriments of one class or ethnic group that may offset some privilege they may have (like the suicide rate of white males vs other minorities).

I'm not even agreeing with that, really, especially not privileges that are at all due to "race." (I'm putting "race" in quotation marks because I believe it's a bogus concept to begin with.) — Terrapin Station

Well, if privileges don't exist for you then no wonder you don't see it as an ethical issue. It seems to me that you're admitting that privileges are subjective. Some admit they exist or not to some degree or another.

This topic is about systematic racism and fairness (privilege), and racism and fairness are ethical issues.

I wasn't endorsing the idea, by the way. I was just saying that it's not an ethical idea. As I said, "Privilege has to do with advantages that someone has--the idea is that it makes it easier for them to get and keep a job, earn more money in that job, rent and buy real estate, deal with the police, etc."

If someone doesn't want to get or keep a job, earn more money rather than less at a job, etc., that's fine. Nevertheless the idea of privilege is that it's easier to get and keep a job, earn more money at that job, etc. That's not an ethical idea. — Terrapin Station

Ok, so we agree that privileges exist. So what? How is that helpful? What do you want to do with this information that privileges exist? Should others ought to have privileges? Isn't that an ethical question?

I guess what grinds my gears here is that trans people have commonalities of experience, as do men and women, so do non-binaries. — fdrake

So trans people aren't men or women, they are trans. You can't say that trans have a commonality of experience with men or women, only other trans.

There are commonalities of experience between people with mental disorders. What does it mean to diagnose someone with a mental disorder? It means that they share common thoughts and behaviors with others that are abnormal.

Say you're born into a family where your parents used ivf with donor sperm and eggs. They also had already adopted two other kids. They raise you and love you your whole life.

According to you, these would not be your family? — Artemis

Sure, I'll grant that, but what does that have to do with what frdake said, or this topic?

you can very much legally disown children and parents. — Artemis

You're talking about legalities. I'm talking about genetics.

:lol: You can't disown genetics. I did use that term, right - "genetics"? Yep, so either you're not paying attention, or you're building straw-men.

Whatever happened to the idea that ad-hominem is not an acceptable argument? — Echarmion

So is it wrong to shame people, or for people to be ashamed, for being born a particular color or not? Would you agree that shaming one group to bring up another is wrong?

I think privilege describes (aims to describe) a socio-economic state of affairs. — Echarmion

Privilege doesn't have to do with ethics. Privilege has to do with advantages that someone has--the idea is that it makes it easier for them to get and keep a job, earn more money in that job, rent and buy real estate, deal with the police, etc.

"That this group has privileges that that group doesn't have is wrong" would be an ethical stance. — Terrapin Station

Privileges are given, bestowed, passed from one person to another. We are not born with them. That's the main issue with “white privilege”: the act of bestowing “privilege” on another is a result of the bestower, not the one receiving the privileges. So not only do they leave out the privilege-giver, but blame the receiver for being given them. — NOS4A2

Did none of you read the rest of my post?

First, what is privilege for one, which is to say what is good for one, may not be good for another. There are many people who don't see material pleasures as a privilege. They can be a crutch. It depends on how you look at life and how you're raised.

The problem you are complaining about is everywhere majorities and minorities exist, across the globe. How can you enforce people from choosing mostly whites for a job when mostly whites are available for the job? How can you force people to "choose" who they associate with?

I've been on the receiving end of an overly aggressive cop more than I can remember, and I think many of them need some anger-management training. This doesn't mean that they're racist. They do it to everyone because they're on a power trip.

What about the white male suicide rate? How easy it is to overlook stats that don't push your political agenda.

As to the socio-economics of it -what about the coinciding averages of socio-economic status and being raised by a single parent and doing well in school that I pointed out?

The fact that you have to point to averages, and not a case by case basis shows that there are instances where blacks make more and have more privileges than many white people. Being rich and famous gets you privileges and it seems more about who you know than what you know.

Hear, hear! And those who are fortunate enough to have good parenting seem to be more able to rise above less-than-ideal circumstances because they were brought up to believe that they could achieve anything. I teach quite a few students who come from the underclass (rural and inner city poverty) and it's pretty easy to tell what kind of parenting they've had. — uncanni

Exactly. My wife has been teaching for over 20 years and teachers and their families know all to well how parenting has a huge impact on the social behaviors of their children.

Correction: entails a biological and/or social bond. People are generally not biologically related to their spouses, in-laws count as families, as do adopted relations. On the flip side, we can and do disown people biologically related to us based on their treatment of us. — Artemis

This isn't a correction because you didn't read 's question, which asks how can one be part of a family one is born into. I didn't understand the question as one is born from a mother and father's genetic material, unless drakes is using an alternate form of "family". If he meant society or culture, he could of just used those terms, but he's being vague and avoiding me now.

Where do you think this dichotomy comes from? Between 'taught and imposed by culture' and 'determined freely by individuals'? — fdrake

Natural selection. The term is called "sexual dimorphism".

"Privilege" has to do with ethics and if there is no objective morality then Is "privilege" a subjective term?

In China there's Chinese privilege. In African counties there's black privilege. In Middle Eastern countries theres Arabic and Muslim privilege.

Whatever happened to the idea of not shaming people for something they have no control over where or how they were born as? Hypocrites.

The suicide rate of white males in the U.S. is higher than those of minorities, except Native Americans. What is white privilege and how is it a privilege if you aren't aware of it? Does this mean that everyone that has been making arguments for anti-realism has suddenly had a change of heart when it comes to politics? Anti-realists arent sure of the chair that you're sitting on exists but are positive that white privilege, even though you aren't aware of it, exists.

This what happens when you don't integrate all of your philosophical ideas into a consistent whole.

It seems to me that there is a "good parenting" privilege, where if you were raised by two loving, selfless parents you end up better off than those that don't when you're an adult.