why do SJW's deconstruct race and sex?

[mauricio]

So I was watching this young girl make this painfully stupid argument and it got me thinking. What is she trying to accomplish?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChwBGf05DA


First they use language that conflates the classification with the actual thing it classifies ''race/sex is a social construct or race/sex does not exist" Then they say hey look the classification does not perfectly describe this one rare instance of reality! But I wonder what is their purpose? what do they want? it seems to me they just want to delegitimatize certain concepts that are problematic for "equality" rather than to actually refine the classification for it to reflect reality more accurately or be more useful. When they see a discrete classification they try to refute it by showing it is actually a continuum, but then they turn around and use the continuum fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy) to deny the objective existence of distinction between separate segments of the continuum, rather than accept that it is a real classification that just isn't discrete, therefore dismissing the entire notion of this type of classification. And they conflate this illogical idiocy with the trivial truth that classifications arise out of social convention (socially constructed). This is tactic known as the motte and bailey doctrine (http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/) used to avoid being refuted when debating, by basically swapping your radical/interesting idea for a trivial truth by a subtle change of definitions of a crucial concept in the middle of the argument. But even in their best case scenario they lose, because classification is NOT the actual thing, so even if you disproved and showed the classification to be meaningless that does nothing to the actual thing it attempted to describe. That's why statements like: ''race/sex is a social construct or race/sex does not exist" are highly misleading when uttered by SJW's.

[Atheon]

SJWs are not for equality. Whereas I personally have long recognized the existence of things like white privilege and unequal rights, and have seen them as a problem since I was first cognizant of them as a pre-teen, my solution is for everyone to enjoy the same privileges and rights, and that these privileges and rights should be maximal. SJWs, on the other hand, want to transfer privilege and rights to those who have least of it, and take it away from those who have most of it, essentially turning the social hierarchy upside down, resulting in privileged classes still lording it over unprivileged classes. And in their world, I would be at the very bottom of their hierarchy, being white, straight and male.

Also, when it comes to nature vs. nurture involving behavioral differences between the sexes, SJWs fall 100% on the nurture side, while those on the far right fall 100% on the nature side, whereas the reality is a mixture of both.

Moreover, while it is true that gender is not a binary, and there is a spectrum between the two poles of male and female, the actual distribution is highly bimodal, and those who fill the "neither" category, while deserving of the same rights, privileges and respect as everyone else, are rare, and this cannot negate the fact that Homo sapiens is at its essence a two-sex species, just like all mammals are.

(Have you noticed that both commentators pronounce "strong" as "shtrong"? Weird. Weird!)

[pr126]

[facebook164]

So I was watching this young girl make this painfully stupid argument and it got me thinking. What is she trying to accomplish?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChwBGf05DA


First they use ...

Stop right there.. "They"????

[Baruch]

If the speaker is using all these advanced and tricky rhetorical techniques ... deliberately ... then she is being brilliant, not stupid.  Rhetoric is about winning, not about truth.  If she is doing this naturally ... then she is a genius of rhetoric.  If one is interested in truth ... or the lack of it ... listen to a philosopher, not an advocate of anything.  Of course everyone has hidden agendas ... the question is ... is the speaker aware of the agenda or not.  If aware, then they are a propagandist, if not ... they are a useful fool.

[Shiranu]

Failure on her part. Gender is a social construct, not sex. Though race is now commonly held as a social construct as well... for me anyways, not trying to say anything with that other than that is the belief now amongst biologists and anthropologists.

[dtq123]

Can we cut this off here? Please?

[Jack89]

Can we cut this off here? Please?

Why are you trying to stop criticism of SJW/Feminism?  This is the second thread I've seen you try to stop today.  I personally find the debate interesting.

[Jack89]

Gender is a social construct, not sex.

I strongly disagree, and I'm sure many transgendered individuals would as well.  There are clear physiological differences between men and women which effect the way they think and behave.  Brain structure and sex hormones are quite different.  There are studies that show testosterone levels are inversely proportional to empathy, and directly proportional to the desire to dominate in social relationship. 

Here's an interesting study that shows primate toy preference - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html

There is no doubt that society accentuates these differences but, at the core, gender is biological. 

[Shiranu]

Why are you trying to stop criticism of SJW/Feminism?  This is the second thread I've seen you try to stop today.  I personally find the debate interesting.

I would say the issue is that even she admits that she does not represent the common "SJW" viewpoint and that they find it too far in her opening statement, which is then followed by a short essay attacking "SJW"s for holding her viewpoint. That isn't criticism of "SJW/feminism" any more than "All atheists hate Christians!" is a criticism of atheism.

 

I strongly disagree, and I'm sure many transgendered individuals would as well.  There are clear physiological differences between men and women which effect the way they think and behave.  Brain structure and sex hormones are quite different.  There are studies that show testosterone levels are inversely proportional to empathy, and directly proportional to the desire to dominate in social relationship. 

Here's an interesting study that shows primate toy preference - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/gender-toys-children-toy-preferences-hormones_n_1827727.html

There is no doubt that society accentuates these differences but, at the core, gender is biological. 

You can disagree with it all you want, but at the end of the day gender refers to how society interprets what actions, roles and expectations are masculine and which are feminine. In some societies in Africa females, biological females, are the aggressive/dominant sex who check nearly every box of what we consider masculine while the men stay at home and nurture the children, take care o the house, gossip and do "stereotypical women" things.

Are the women of that tribe actually men since they behave like we think men should behave and the men actually women since they behave as we believe women should behave?

Yes, how one interprets and assigns them self to a gender is partly biological... but that says nothing about gender itself, the concept of gender, but rather how one assigns themselves to a gender.

[stromboli]

Can we cut this off here? Please?

I'm with you, but its not going to happen.  :34:

[mauricio]

If the speaker is using all these advanced and tricky rhetorical techniques ... deliberately ... then she is being brilliant, not stupid.  Rhetoric is about winning, not about truth.  If she is doing this naturally ... then she is a genius of rhetoric.  If one is interested in truth ... or the lack of it ... listen to a philosopher, not an advocate of anything.  Of course everyone has hidden agendas ... the question is ... is the speaker aware of the agenda or not.  If aware, then they are a propagandist, if not ... they are a useful fool.

I was talking about SJWs in general from my many debates with them not this chick specifically, which I think is just repeating their talking points, talking points which themselves are watered down post modernist arguments. Many of this guys don't even notice they are doing that, they just do it and they think it all makes sense, because it sounds convincing. Lot's of fallacies also sound convincing until you understand the underlying non sequitur in their logical structure.

[mauricio]

Stop right there.. "They"????

yeah "they": the group of people who do this stuff? what's so hard to understand?

[mauricio]

Failure on her part. Gender is a social construct, not sex. Though race is now commonly held as a social construct as well... for me anyways, not trying to say anything with that other than that is the belief now amongst biologists and anthropologists.

what does social construct mean? Also what exactly is gender? how is it different from sex? and how is it related to the structure of the body?

[facebook164]

yeah "they": the group of people who do this stuff? what's so hard to understand?

What group? I font think there is a self identified grouo that argues that bilogical sex is a socisl construct.  And that is definitely not feminists.