Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Social experiment shows leftist women's hypocrisy on sharing bathrooms with trans men Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocoholic_x)
    I don't see how the belief that our genetics influence our gender identity is incompatible with the notion that gender is a social construct. The fact that it is not purely biological is what makes it a social construct.

    Take the example of psychopathy. One of the ways psychopathy is assessed is by Hare's Psychopathy Checklist. It has 20 items, of which you can score either 0, 1 or 2 for each. Thus, out of a maximum score of 40, the cut-off for the label of psychopathy is 30 in the United States and 25 in the United Kingdom. This seems rather arbitrary right? And it is, the cut-off is socially constructed. Never mind the fact that there are genetic bases of psychopathy. It simply that as a society, for pragmatic reasons, we need to come up with a point to say "Look, you're a psychopath. You're not a psychopath (although you have some psychopathic tendencies".

    Similarly, there are biological influences over how we gender identify but it can still be termed a social construct.
    When you say something is a social construct, the implication is that it is not rooted in biology, hence "social construct". The classical example is the egalitarian claim that race is a social construct (false). If you are admitting a biological basis for something, it would be more correct to say that there are environmental influences to a genetic trait.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    So where's the evidence that these women are left-wing?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    When you say something is a social construct, the implication is that it is not rooted in biology, hence "social construct". The classical example is the egalitarian claim that race is a social construct (false). If you are admitting a biological basis for something, it would be more correct to say that there are environmental influences to a genetic trait.
    You should have a read up on social constructionism before asserting a false dichotomy between biology vs. environment. That might have been what you inferred purely from the name but as I have explained before, a social construct does not have to be devoid of biological influences. A social construct is merely a construct that it is constructed by and contingent on society. I even gave you the helpful analogy of psychopathy. I'll repeat it again:

    Take the example of psychopathy. One of the ways psychopathy is assessed is by Hare's Psychopathy Checklist. It has 20 items, of which you can score either 0, 1 or 2 for each. Thus, out of a maximum score of 40, the cut-off for the label of psychopathy is 30 in the United States and 25 in the United Kingdom. This seems rather arbitrary right? And it is, the cut-off is socially constructed. Never mind the fact that there are genetic bases of psychopathy. It simply that as a society, for pragmatic reasons, we need to come up with a point to say "Look, you're a psychopath. You're not a psychopath (although you have some psychopathic tendencies".

    Race is a good example of a social construct since although it can be heavily influenced by biology, as I'm sure you're aware, the ultimate say of who counts as "black" or who counts as "white" is socially constructed. Barack Obama and other mixed-race individuals often identify and are identified as black (and not white) because society has determined that because being white is the "standard" in Western Society. Likewise, I'm half Japanese (half European) but I get read as purely Asian all the time because any deviation from the standard is othered. This is what people mean when they say race is a social construct.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    Original joke
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocoholic_x)
    You should have a read up on social constructionism before asserting a false dichotomy between biology vs. environment. That might have been what you inferred purely from the name but as I have explained before, a social construct does not have to be devoid of biological influences. A social construct is merely a construct that it is constructed by and contingent on society. I even gave you the helpful analogy of psychopathy. I'll repeat it again:

    Take the example of psychopathy. One of the ways psychopathy is assessed is by Hare's Psychopathy Checklist. It has 20 items, of which you can score either 0, 1 or 2 for each. Thus, out of a maximum score of 40, the cut-off for the label of psychopathy is 30 in the United States and 25 in the United Kingdom. This seems rather arbitrary right? And it is, the cut-off is socially constructed. Never mind the fact that there are genetic bases of psychopathy. It simply that as a society, for pragmatic reasons, we need to come up with a point to say "Look, you're a psychopath. You're not a psychopath (although you have some psychopathic tendencies".

    Race is a good example of a social construct since although it can be heavily influenced by biology, as I'm sure you're aware, the ultimate say of who counts as "black" or who counts as "white" is socially constructed. Barack Obama and other mixed-race individuals often identify and are identified as black (and not white) because society has determined that because being white is the "standard" in Western Society. Likewise, I'm half Japanese (half European) but I get read as purely Asian all the time because any deviation from the standard is othered. This is what people mean when they say race is a social construct.
    I'm not interested in the mental gymnastics of leftists trying to make their definition of social constructivism cover for biology. If you say that something is a social construct, what's implied is very clear. Otherwise you can be honest and admit that there are genetic influences.
    Race is a taxon based on biological differences, just like species and most other taxa in biology. With your necessarily broad definition of "social construct", everything can be a social construct when you want it to be. A mountain can be asocial construct, colors can be social constructs, etc. Your definition of "social construct" suddenly becomes quite meaningless and deceptive.
    What we see here is a typical example of the left trying to define language and to advance a perception of reality which does not align with facts.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Exactly. :five:
    Is really exactly?

    Not all trans people want fit perfectly into heteronormative roles.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IAmNero)
    This is wrong on so many levels.
    Sex is biological, you can't dispute that, it's rooted in the DNA.

    Gender has no biological association. In many regards it is just considered the sex but the left like to re-invent the word. I think the left have invented 20+ different genders now
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    I'm not interested in the mental gymnastics of leftists trying to make their definition of social constructivism cover for biology. If you say that something is a social construct, what's implied is very clear. Otherwise you can be honest and admit that there are genetic influences.
    Race is a taxon based on biological differences, just like species and most other taxa in biology. With your necessarily broad definition of "social construct", everything can be a social construct when you want it to be. A mountain can be asocial construct, colors can be social constructs, etc. Your definition of "social construct" suddenly becomes quite meaningless and deceptive.
    What we see here is a typical example of the left trying to define language and to advance a perception of reality which does not align with facts.
    Social constructionism is an academic term. I'm all for the organic growth and change in language but just because you alone are not happy with the term, doesn't mean the whole of academia are going to bend to your will.

    Yes, many things that we do not necessarily think of are social constructs. (As an aside: there's actually been some really cool research on the point of colours actually, that show that different cultures view the world differently due to the difference in the social construction of colours. Like, some cultures can see what we would view as tiny differences in the shade of green, but do not perceive blue as strongly as we do because they have no word for it. It's really interesting!)

    But the value of the term 'social construct' is in highlighting and drawing people's attention to the social influences that pertain to the social construct in question, whether that be gender or race, etc. Just like we're having this conversation now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocoholic_x)
    Social constructionism is an academic term. I'm all for the organic growth and change in language but just because you alone are not happy with the term, doesn't mean the whole of academia are going to bend to your will.
    It's a term by leftist academics. Most definitions of the term I came across with, by the way, made no reference to biological differences or influences.

    (Original post by chocoholic_x)
    Yes, many things that we do not necessarily think of are social constructs. (As an aside: there's actually been some really cool research on the point of colours actually, that show that different cultures view the world differently due to the difference in the social construction of colours. Like, some cultures can see what we would view as tiny differences in the shade of green, but do not perceive blue as strongly as we do because they have no word for it. It's really interesting!)
    Give an example of something which is clearly not a social construct.

    (Original post by chocoholic_x)
    But the value of the term 'social construct' is in highlighting and drawing people's attention to the social influences that pertain to the social construct in question, whether that be gender or race, etc. Just like we're having this conversation now.
    Thanks for showing the motivation behind the term. In other words, the goal is to downplay genetic influences, which is a traditional egalitarian leftist goal in the nature vs nurture and racial differences debates. This is not surprising as it is a leftist term in the first place. It has primarily cultural, metapolitical, and not scientific motivations.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plstudent)
    It's a term by leftist academics. Most definitions of the term I came across with, by the way, made no reference to biological differences or influences.
    What is your problem with "leftists". I've made no mention to politics or my personal political views, or whether it subscribes to left-wing or right-wing values (beyond simply the common sense notion of accepting all people). I've just engaged in philosophical and sociological discussion. You keep randomly throwing the word "left" in there as if it will make your point more valid?

    (Original post by plstudent)
    Give an example of something which is clearly not a social construct.
    Hey, you just totally ignored my really interesting side-track about research into colour. It's like you're not interested in the furthering of scientific knowledge in human behaviour. Which, given, you tout "scientific motivations" (as if you've provided any yourself), is a bit disappointing.

    Not a social construct? Everything which can be derived from formal logic and maths.

    (Original post by plstudent)
    Thanks for showing the motivation behind the term. In other words, the goal is to downplay genetic influences, which is a traditional egalitarian leftist goal in the nature vs nurture and racial differences debates. This is not surprising as it is a leftist term in the first place. It has primarily cultural, metapolitical, and not scientific motivations.
    Twisting my words again. Who said anything about downplaying the role of genetic influences? It's basically a given. It's understood, generally, that our genes have an effect on who we are. I don't think many people would debate that. What many people do debate is the power of social influences. As we are.

    Also, "egalitarian", that's another one. My understanding of egalitarian is the belief in equality. Is that not something you subscribe to...?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Gender refers to social characteristics society classifies as feminine or masculine.

    Sex is biological.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I fail to see the relevance of your response to my statement.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I fail to see the relevance of your response to my statement.
    Then by definition you're not qualified to talk on the matter.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Then by definition you're not qualified to talk on the matter.
    You're adding no real benefit to this discussion, *Stefan*. But nice attempt.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    You're adding no real benefit to this discussion, *Stefan*. But nice attempt.
    Yes, excuse me for you making comments on a subject you do not understand. It's me not adding the benefit :rolleyes:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Yes, excuse me for you making comments on a subject you do not understand. It's me not adding the benefit :rolleyes: Posted from TSR Mobile
    I asked for a clarification of the relevance of your post and you went on to make further assumptions. Hardly constructive.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I asked for a clarification of the relevance of your post and you went on to make further assumptions. Hardly constructive.
    It is a given for someone who made your original comment to be able to differentiate between gender and sex (and thus appreciate any commentary on this topic). By not even realising how this is relevant, you showed that you are in no position to defend what you said.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    This tbh.
    I like to know how a young child can feel like the opposite while he or she was never the opposite sex to begin with. That is what confuses with with the whole born in the wrong body thing or id as a the opposite sex.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    How is it wrong?
    Feminine and Masculine traits are also the product of DNA and genetics, they are not just 'made up' by society. Men and Women are very different in terms of personality and brain chemistry, that is scientific fact. Deal with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That sounds really scripted lol
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IAmNero)
    Feminine and Masculine traits are also the product of DNA and genetics, they are not just 'made up' by society. Men and Women are very different in terms of personality and brain chemistry, that is scientific fact. Deal with it.
    What kind of traits are you referring to?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 8, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.