Race is a social construct.......

Pawwed Rig

Turtyturd wrote: »

Some man could go out tomorrow and say they identify as a female and adhere to the socially constructed idea of what it is to be of the female gender without all that.

Does that happen in real life though barring a tiny minority?

Veritas Libertas

Race: a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group

Ethnicity: large group of people who have the same national, racial, or cultural origins, or the state of belonging to such a group

I find using the sociological definitions obfuscating and unnecessary(as evidenced by ancapaill's reply). Too often are they to blame in discussions today when we can't even agree on the definitions of words that had well-defined meaning because they have been hijacked by a group of people who use them to obscure and smear.

Let's be honest, when we use these words we use them interchangeably because to be ethnically part of a group also requires to be racially a part of that group(in most groups). Try moving to Japan and being considered ethnically Japanese- even generations down the line. Even when famous black people are mentioned as Irish, e.g. Paul McGrath, it's always done with a smile and a wink.

When people say 'race is a social construct' and they are using the sociological definition I find myself agreeing with them.

poisonated

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

Wrong. Sex is not a social construct but gender is. People wrongly use these as if they meant the same thing.

Veritas Libertas

poisonated wrote: »

Wrong. Sex is not a social construct but gender is. People wrongly use these as if they meant the same thing.

My argument(above) for race and ethnicity is the same as gender and sex.
Sociological definitions have hijacked these meanings when most often people use these words interchangeably.

1665/1666 of us are born either xx or xy and it is very easy to tell.

Sex:either of the two main categories (male and female)

Gender:either of the two sexes (male and female)

poisonated

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

My argument(above) for race and ethnicity is the same as gender and sex.
Sociological definitions have hijacked these meanings when most often people use these words interchangeably.

1665/1666 of us are born either xx or xy and it is very easy to tell.

Yes but that is just ignorant.

Veritas Libertas

poisonated wrote: »

Yes but that is just ignorant.

What is it ignorant of?

Wouldn't it be better if sociology types invented a new word instead of hijacking the word gender? Just like they did with race?
Instead these hijackers go around telling others they have got the definition of a word wrong, the cheek!!!!

poisonated

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What is it ignorant of?

Wouldn't it be better if sociology types invented a new word instead of hijacking the word gender? Just like they did with race?
Instead these hijackers go around telling others they have got the definition of a word wrong, the cheek!!!!

Lol....the cheek? Oxford dictionary defines gender as “either of the two sexes (male and female) WITH REFERENCE TO SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN BIOLOGICAL ONES”.... maybe you should write to them and tell them that their definition is wrong? You appear to be an expert after all.

Veritas Libertas

poisonated wrote: »

Lol....the cheek? Oxford dictionary defines gender as “either of the two sexes (male and female) WITH REFERENCE TO SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN BIOLOGICAL ONES”.... maybe you should write to them and tell them that their definition is wrong? You appear to be an expert after all.

From that same dictionary they state that since it's inception in the 14th century people have been using gender interchangeably with sex usually when referring to words as masculine and feminine. The word has been successfully hijacked by sociologists to the point of causing us all headaches.

Since the word sex has erotic qualities people prefer to use gender instead in polite society.

But here's the thing... even using the newer definition, the sentence "Gender is a social construct" becomes an empty and vacuous statement, watch.

Gender(The cultural and societal differences between men and women) are a social construct. It literally means nothing. Since society and culture and also 'constructs'.

During the 1970s, there was no consensus about how the terms were to be applied. In the 1974 edition of Masculine/Feminine or Human, the author uses "innate gender" and "learned sex roles", but in the 1978 edition, the use of sex and gender is reversed. By 1980, most feminist writings had agreed on using gender only for socioculturally adapted traits.

batgoat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I find using the sociological definitions obfuscating and unnecessary(as evidenced by ancapaill's reply). Too often are they to blame in discussions today when we can't even agree on the definitions of words that had well-defined meaning because they have been hijacked by a group of people who use them to obscure and smear.

Let's be honest, when we use these words we use them interchangeably because to be ethnically part of a group also requires to be racially a part of that group(in most groups). Try moving to Japan and being considered ethnically Japanese- even generations down the line. Even when famous black people are mentioned as Irish, e.g. Paul McGrath, it's always done with a smile and a wink.

When people say 'race is a social construct' and they are using the sociological definition I find myself agreeing with them.

A smile and a wink when saying Paul McGrath is Irish? Nah that's nonsense... Non white people can be Irish regardless of the strange standards in your mind.

HailSatan

batgoat wrote: »

A smile and a wink when saying Paul O'Connell is Irish? Nah that's nonsense... Non white people can be Irish regardless of the strange standards in your mind.

What are you trying to say here - Paul O'Connell isn't white Irish?

Or are you just trying to prove how "colour blind" you are that you can mix up Paul O'Connell and Paul McGrath?

begbysback

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

If it weren’t for things like law, religion and class, and many others then this statement would have an element of truth.

batgoat

HailSatan wrote: »

What are you trying to say here - Paul O'Connell isn't white Irish?

Or are you just trying to prove how "colour blind" you are that you can mix up Paul O'Connell and Paul McGrath?

I was half asleep at that point... :P

Donnielighto

Race is shorthand for ethnicity. In that way it isn't a social construct, it's obvious enough that it isn't. Unless race is being used to distinguish within an ethnic group it isn't a social construct.


As an aside have race and ethnicity always had that difference, I thought a race of people had an ethnicity so they were linked.

HailSatan

batgoat wrote: »

I was half asleep at that point... :P

Dreaming about Paul O'Connell?

Veritas Libertas

Donnielighto wrote: »

As an aside have race and ethnicity always had that difference, I thought a race of people had an ethnicity so they were linked.

Maybe not so in Ireland and the five eyes, but pretty much anywhere else it would be difficult to be considered ethnically part of a group without also being 'racially of that group'. I think that this is the overlap that you mention.

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd argue 99% of gender is a social construct

Is that on the length or on the thickness?

LoughNeagh2017

I was given the option to opt into organ donation in my driving license renewal form, it gave me great pleasure in leaving it blank, the final display of misanthropy a man can make, imagine one of your organs going to some orange man or something, the thought isn't worth thinking about

Veritas Libertas

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I was given the option to opt into organ donation in my driving license renewal form,

I remember reading something from Dan Ariely (social psychologist-genius) that when the form gives the option to OPT OUT of organ donation instead of OPT INTO organ donation, then the organ donation rate shoots up massively.

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

it gave me great pleasure in leaving it blank,

We're just too lazy to check boxes :pac::D



(paper by Eric Johnson and Daniel Goldstein)

Finally, there is another cost, [...]that is the cost of making a decision. Since people consider this question aversive, there is some utility to defaults, which allow people not to make choices, as opposed to mandated choice paradigms. In fact, the current experience in
mandated choice is instructive. When the state of Virginia adopted a policy of forcing people to make a choice, over 24% refused to report a preference (25), consistent with the idea that forming a preference is cognitively costly. Defaults not only make a difference in what is chosen, they can also make decisions easier.

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

I remember reading something from Dan Ariely (social psychologist-genius) that when the form gives the option to OPT OUT OF organ donation instead of OPT INTO organ donation, then the organ donation rate shoots up massively.

Ariely is at kilkenomics this year again, a great mind

Veritas Libertas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Ariely is at kilkenomics this year again, a great mind

Thanks for the heads-up, I think I need to visit Kilkenny in November

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up, I think I need to visit Kilkenny in November

Its a really good festival, some great debates with interesting minds

Veritas Libertas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Its a really good festival, some great debates with interesting minds

Ariely is also hilarious, seems well suited for that festival. Never even knew it existed! Really chuffed with the info thanks

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

Ariely is also hilarious, seems well suited for that festival. Never even knew it existed! Really chuffed with the info thanks

Yea he has an unusual sense of humour, very intelligent though, he's worth seeing, wish he'd mix more with the other contributors though at the festival, and get more involved in debates, as he would be a great addition to lineups. They ll be announcing more debates and contributors over the coming weeks, bring your wallet, it can be an expensive weekend, but well worth it