why do SJW's deconstruct race and sex?

[mauricio]

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.

You are missing the point, this girl is meaningless, she just exemplifies the rhetorical tricks because she lays them bare and got me thinking about all my conversations with this type of neoprogressives. SJWs is the group, check this out to see them in action : https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/

Almost all of them call themselves and each other feminist

[stromboli]

I'm going to call this "Walking Butt Hurt Syndrome" and leave it at that.

And to the "your point is?" response, figure it the fuck out.

[mauricio]

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.

You are wrong my analysis of their rhetorical tricks apply quite well to many of their arguments on this topic, not just to this girl. It may seem less obvious due to their use of further obfuscation by conflating aspects of sex with gender by playing with the fuzzy limits of nature and nurture when discussin gender vs sex and social construction. But the race thing they say it outright.

[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.

Also do you believe a person with male sex but woman gender exists? who are they? and how is their structure (of their body) ?

[Baruch]

My three cents ...

Body, preferred sexual partner, gender are all different.

Your body is male, or female or mixed
You preferred sexual partner is male, female or both (bi)
Your gender (how you see yourself, not necessarily how others see you) is masculine, feminine or both

So there are three variables, each with three possible values.  That means there are 3x3x3=27 different kinds of humans, approximately.  The vast majority fit into two of those 27 (28 if we add one more for none-of-the-above) ... male/female partner/masculine and female/male partner/feminine.

A drag queen for example is male/male partner/feminine ... but most gays are male/male partner/masculine.

A m-f transexual for example is male/male partner/feminine who wants to be female/male partner/feminine (unless she is lesbian or bi)  Drag queens don't seek to transition, or even see themselves or want to be seen as normal females ... they are burlesque.

I defined gender as self defined ... not socially defined.  Society is comfortable with the two primary types, and not with the other 26.  The normal folks define this as "normal" vs "abnormal".  #28 could be the asexual/androgynous/neutral person.

[Draconic Aiur]

Can we cut this off here? Please?

[mauricio]

My three cents ...

Body, preferred sexual partner, gender are all different.

Your body is male, or female or mixed
You preferred sexual partner is male, female or both (bi)
Your gender (how you see yourself, not necessarily how others see you) is masculine, feminine or both

So there are three variables, each with three possible values.  That means there are 3x3x3=27 different kinds of humans, approximately.  The vast majority fit into two of those 27 (28 if we add one more for none-of-the-above) ... male/female partner/masculine and female/male partner/feminine.

A drag queen for example is male/male partner/feminine ... but most gays are male/male partner/masculine.

A m-f transexual for example is male/male partner/feminine who wants to be female/male partner/feminine (unless she is lesbian or bi)  Drag queens don't seek to transition, or even see themselves or want to be seen as normal females ... they are burlesque.

I defined gender as self defined ... not socially defined.  Society is comfortable with the two primary types, and not with the other 26.  The normal folks define this as "normal" vs "abnormal".  #28 could be the asexual/androgynous/neutral person.

The thing is that unless you believe in substance dualism and believe in some kind of soul, your body is the one the configures the other two categories, how then does this work? The interesting part is how do they interact with each other.

[PickelledEggs]

Can we cut this off here? Please?

The only way this thread will be cut off is if it gets increasingly boring/people lose interest and move on.

You do, however have the option to just ignore that this thread exists... like I will probably because I already lost interest.

[Shiranu]

Also do you believe a person with male sex but woman gender exists? who are they? and how is their structure (of their body) ?

Uh, yes. If it wasn't for a social upbringing where that is highly discouraged there is a good chance that is what I would identify as.

They would be a male with a penis who identifies as a woman. As for anything more than that, it would be up to them to determine what they are. I don't believe with something like sexuality and gender you can just put them in a nice little box and say, "They are 100 percent THIS!". Which is where I have to slightly disagree with you, Baruch...

Your body is male, or female or mixed
You preferred sexual partner is male, female or both (bi)
Your gender (how you see yourself, not necessarily how others see you) is masculine, feminine or both

Straight, gay/lesbian, bi isn't necessarily accurate, since there are people who are of mixed sex... likewise there are pansexuals who the sex doesn't matter one way or another, demisexuals who are attracted to people whom they have deep emotional connections with, regardless of sex, asexuals and so on.

The same can go for gender, there are people who don't identify as male or female...

At the end of the day these titles are just trying to reduce an EXTREMELY complicated and diverse scale into three or four little boxes, and it just doesn't accurately work. And who are we to tell someone, "No, you're not what you claim to be... you most closely fit this box, so you are CLEARLY this box!" even when that box does not accurately describe them?

Why do we need to put people's sexuality or gender into an organized, cut-and-paste box, and why is that a harder idea to get one's head around (I mean that in the most unoffensive way, I promise...) than to believe we can just go around and label such an incredibly complex thing as one's gender or sexuality? When you put these labels on people then you are only limiting them from being who they really are, and that is never a good thing.

That's my two cents on it, anyways.

[dtq123]

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've had bad experiences with both SJW and MRA. I don't fit anywhere, and I panicked, so don't mind me.

If you want a better reason, ask around. Someone ought to remember the exact thread that hit hard.

[mauricio]

They would be a male with a penis who identifies as a woman. As for anything more than that, it would be up to them to determine what they are. I don't believe with something like sexuality and gender you can just put them in a nice little box and say, "They are 100 percent THIS!". Which is where I have to slightly disagree with you, Baruch...

But what does it mean to identify as a woman? (actually answer this question if you can please) And by body I was not only talking about genitalia, but the entire body.

Obviously discrete categories can be problematic when aspects of reality tends to be messier or continuous, but categorizing people along what people simply claim they are? that sounds even more useless. That's why I asked about the structure of their bodies. We should base our classifications around that as we do with things like chemicals or other animals in an attempt to objectively describe their properties and differences.

[mauricio]

also found this interesting article on the race debate that refutes and defends various arguments about: Is race a biological reality? Or is it a social construction?

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/

I like the point at the end

The real debate about race is not whether there are any differences between populations, but about the significance of such differences. The fact that a BMW saloon is of a different colour to a Boeing 747 is of little significance to most people. The fact that one has an internal combustion engine and the other a jet engine is of immense consequence if you want to travel from London to New York. But if you are a Yanomamo Indian living in the Amazon forest, even this difference may not be of that great an import, since it is quite possible that you will be unable â€" or will not need â€" to use either form of transport. If we want to understand the significance of any set of differences, in other words, we have to ask ourselves two questions: Significant for what? And in what context? One of the problems of the contemporary debate about race is that these two questions get too rarely asked

[Shiranu]

But what does it mean to identify as a woman? (actually answer this question if you can please) And by body I was not only talking about genitalia, but the entire body.

It depends on how you mean it. You could mean a woman as in having a vagina. You could mean woman as what the particular society you live in defines as a woman and/or her roles. A person with a male sex simply means they have a penis; their body could be skinny, fat, short, tall, bearded, not bearded, long hair, bald, etc. etc. . Sex means you have a penis, vagina or something else... no other statement about one's body, preferences or gender.

... but categorizing people along what people simply claim they are? that sounds even more useless.

Except for medical situations (which could be addressed biologically, as it should be), is there any use in categorizing people? Sex I can see to an extent (though almost all those are at least loosely medically related as well), but gender and orientation have zero reason to HAVE to put people into a box. Who someone else is attracted to, or what gender the identify as, is absolutely none of my business and at best is pointless to know.

We should base our classifications around that as we do with things like chemicals or other animals in an attempt to objectively describe their properties and differences.

You are comparing a fluid system to set things though; a moose is a moose is a moose, but gender and sexuality are so fluid you cannot point to one spot and say it defines everything around it perfectly. And again, why must we classify everything? I think it's far more beautiful to look at the diversity and appreciate it rather than try to stifle it... it's like being allowed to paint with only one shade of red, one shade of blue, one shade of green etc. because, "They are more or less all the same thing".

Significant for what? And in what context?

I would argue there is no context where it is significant, hence the reason to not use it (especially since, as the article said, science cant "prove it" one way or the other).

[mauricio]

It depends on how you mean it. You could mean a woman as in having a vagina. You could mean woman as what the particular society you live in defines as a woman and/or her roles. A person with a male sex simply means they have a penis; their body could be skinny, fat, short, tall, bearded, not bearded, long hair, bald, etc. etc. . Sex means you have a penis, vagina or something else... no other statement about one's body, preferences or gender.

To me a woman is a female of the homo sapiens species, this goes beyond having a vagina since the body is organic, each part is integrated with each other. With the vagina you have the ovaries which are connected to the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus and other organs that form the female endocrine system which is very central to what it means to be a woman, due to all the things it influences to create the female homo sapiens. The thing about the body is that your entire body configures who you are, there's no mind/body and neither is there a brain/body dichotomy, they are thoroughly integrated. The nervous system spreads through the entire body, it can affect your body through nervous signals and chemical messengers also your psychological states can affect the rest of the body through psychosomatic effects. There's no such thing as a female brain or mind in a male body or vice versa. There's however individuals with anomalous structures due to epigenetic effects that occur during fetal development which find themselves far from the peaks of the heavily bimodal distribution of human sex.

Except for medical situations (which could be addressed biologically, as it should be), is there any use in categorizing people? Sex I can see to an extent (though almost all those are at least loosely medically related as well), but gender and orientation have zero reason to HAVE to put people into a box. Who someone else is attracted to, or what gender the identify as, is absolutely none of my business and at best is pointless to know.

The pursuit of knowledge and to properly understand our universe and our place in it. From there many pragmatic benefits could be derived. By classifying we can further this goals with much more ease. I could even see that without classification systems we would not be able to communicate or think logically. To classify is to define and contrast, which seems to me to be the basis of language and thought. A=A & A=/=B I think you underestimate the value of understanding sexuality it's definitely not pointless.

You are comparing a fluid system to set things though; a moose is a moose is a moose, but gender and sexuality are so fluid you cannot point to one spot and say it defines everything around it perfectly.

What do you mean by fluid? You mean continuous as opposed to discrete?
By "a moose is a moose is a moose" are you talking about taxonomy? Sadly taxonomy at finer points is continuous too which is problematic for discrete categorization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem)
But as I do with race I would take the position that the categories are non-discrete approximations based on our current understanding for pragmatic purposes including to help further our understanding.


And again, why must we classify everything? I think it's far more beautiful to look at the diversity and appreciate it rather than try to stifle it... it's like being allowed to paint with only one shade of red, one shade of blue, one shade of green etc. because, "They are more or less all the same thing".

You sound like keats here:
Keats lightheartedly said Newton 'has destroyed all the poetry of the rainbow, by reducing it to the prismatic colours.'
And we have the color continuum we do not need to classify everything in discrete non overlapping categories, we can also use continuum models. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_%28measurement%29).

[Shiranu]

Heading to bed and shouldn't back besides on phone for the next day or two, so I will try to give as best of response I can at 2:30 in the morning.

Bold 1:

You are correct; but again, for the sake of putting people into boxes (not my idea), sex is defined on if you have a penis, vagina or neither. The rest is irrelevant, regardless of if it should or shouldn't be. However I would say that the differences of men's and women's brains (and thus "they" as an individual) is not scientifically agreed on as to how far the variations go. Likewise how one expresses their "masculinity" and "femininity" vary from culture to culture... indicating that it is clearly not wholly a matter of biology. Just look at what was "masculine", what it was to be a "male" 100 years ago, or a "female", and look at it today... it is drastically different. If it was all biological processes, it should not change within one civilization so rapidly and so (relatively) uniformly. 

What it means to be a man or woman is completely up to society to decide. There may not be a "female brain in a male's body", but there can certainly be a woman's.

Bold 2:

Yes, but categorizing for the sake for the sake of categorizing, for the sake of putting a little box on a paper, does not have any practical application. Again, in terms of medical reasons... have at categorizing for practical, scientific reasons. And if people want to self-identify as these categories, more power to them. The problem is that these categories go on to become social and cultural phenomenon that a member is obliged to follow unwaveringly lest they be ostracized... or is argued with and told, "No, you ARE ______, not what you say you are!" when they say they do not fit the box fully. That is where my problem lies... we put far too much emphasis on trying to describe what people are and aren't at the cost of ignoring what the individual says they are or aren't, which at the end of the day, only they know what is going on in their mind, no one else.

Bold 3:

By fluid I mean sexuality is a constantly changing beast in humans, and the spectrum basically puts three points on the line... gay-----bi-----straight ... and leaves no room for anything else. Likewise people can go from straight to bi, or gay to bi... or bi to gay, bi to straight, straight to gay, gay to straight. There are guy's who have had children, enjoyed that life... and then out of the blue get a divorce, marry a man and live happily ever after... Are they gay? Bi? Straight? When they were with wife, they enjoyed it... but now they are no longer interested in women and enjoy men. So if one's sexual preferences are able to be changed, then putting it into a concrete category like we do is simply pointless. And it doesn't include groups such as asexuals, demisexuals, and several other's whom's names are escaping me at this hour.

bold 4:

That's the problem; if we are using a continuum, for the purpose of putting people into boxes we have to say, "Close enough". That is one thing with colours to do, but an entirely different thing with living beings. To have practical boxes that moderately accurately define someone, we need to add about 1000 more boxes to get anywhere close to having enough "close enoughs" to justify it (in terms of sexuality or gender).

Closing statement:

I have to agree with Keat's statements in-so-far that, if he was referring to a living being then yes, it destroys both the beauty and makes people try to fit into boxes they aren't built for. At the end of the day people are simply too diverse to try to accurately define them in anything less than a 100,000 different boxes for them to tick... take 100 gay men from a city, you will have 100 different ways of expressing their gayness. Take 1000 women from a country, and you will have 1000 different ways of what it means to be a woman. Take 10,000 black men and you will have 10,000 different definitions of what it "is" to be a black man.

One's sexual preference, gender identification or race (especially race) tells us nearly nothing about an individual. I say especially race because even amongst "race" there are absolutely staggering cultural differences; I am 1/3rd Irish, 1/3rd Sicilian and then a mix of several Mediterranean cultures... I am mostly "white" with a little "brown/black" thrown in, but what does that mean? What does my "whiteness" tell you about me? The English are also of the same race, but vastly different socially from the Irish. I am Sicilian, and the culture (as well as ethnic heritage) is completely different from that of a Roman or Milanese... my background there has more akin to the Greeks and the Levant than Italy.

There is no benefit for me to tell you I am white or brown/black/whatever; at best it is meaninglessly vague and at worse a source to discriminate against me. There is no benefit to me telling you I am bi (unless I am trying to get into your pants or you possibly want in mine). There is no benefit to me telling you that I prefer several of the social constructs that are deemed to be "feminine" or "what it means to be a woman" more appealing and satisfying than the social constructs that, in my society at least, are deemed to be "masculine" and "what it means to be a man".

These are all meaningless and vague attributes used to separate us into "Group A's" and "Group B's" and bypass the individual human experience. And I say this as someone who, by America's highly individualistic standards, considers himself extremely group and community oriented... but I feel these groups should be one's you choose or are created through a shared social relationship, not arbitrary biological attributes that say nothing of a person. To classify someone by their skin colour is as pointless as classifying them by ear lobes, or nostril size, eye colour, hair colour, etc. ... it tells you nothing of the person.

Edit: and I will say this; I realize this is a topic that will be hard for me to come to an agreement with you simply because I'll be the first to admit my personality or brain is wired far more to value emotional and personal thought processes than more purely scientific or logic based thought that tends to be more prevalent. I try to see both Sides and accept them, but it doesn't necessarily click with me.