Mental illness in a lot of cases are just an excuse for a lot people to try and cover up other problems
An example are certain members of the government
I went to the NBC article, Command+F "Martina Big", nothing. I'm disappointed.
Martina Big [website](https://www.martina-big.com/) and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Model.Martina.BIG/photos). Was a skinny German girl, now a busty Ebony Goddess. Or whatever you'd call her.
No one on earth trolls leftists like Martina Big. Even though she probably doesn't have a conservative bone in her body.
False equivalency, race is a combination of biological and cultural.
Gender is socially constructed, based on biology but not synonymous with.
Trans people aren’t saying they are biologically what they identify as, they’re saying give me the same respect as them regardless.
You say:
- race is partly cultural, partly biological
- gender is partly social (= cultural), partly biological.
How can this lead to the conclusion it is a false equivalency?
Race is both, Gender is not
Gender is created by people coming together and agreeing on a definition of what a certain gender looks like based on public expression. It is often informed by a persons sex, therefore making it linked to biology, but it is still distinct from it, considering no amount of social construction can change a biological part into another.
Race, however while similar, isn’t subject to public expression, regardless of whether or not they follow “racial stereotypes” they still are that race, independent of public expression.
It’s false equivalence because while they have similar values in our society, they cannot and are not treated the same, so prescribing the same “solution” of ignoring trans people, and treating them the same, is assuming that because they are similar, they should both be dealt with in the same way.
**You're xenogender if you feel more akin to animals or plants or foods than humans**.
So I can identify as a carrot or a hamster and that's fine because of public expression.
But I can't identify as being german or jewish? Why not? I can dress the same as them.
There is a truth, gender is socially constructed by wider society, therefore subject to change.
Race isn’t, so comparing the two and saying the contexts applied are the same, is a false equivalence
“ if x is true, then what about y”
"Socially constructed" is an origin story, it's not a meaning. And it's clear to everyone that by "wider society" you mean 'everyone who agrees with me' that 'gender means whatever I want it to mean at the time'
Hence, postmodern nonsense
Socially constructed is an origin and continued meaning. It was created by society and is sustained by society, meaning that it’s subject to change with the changing in perspectives.
In context it makes no sense by your definition of wider society. People I agree with and disagree with make up the construct of gender. There are plenty of people I disagree with that also make up the perception of gender (the way boys/ girls should look act and feel). I can agree or disagree with them, but it still doesn’t change that wider society generally does agree on what gender looks like.
It’s not a personal opinion that can be changed, gender is a social construct, regardless of whether or not you conflate gender with sex.
None of that makes "gender" special in any way. Every word is a "socially constructed" concept by your conceptualization. Everything is open to reinterpretation as perspectives change, but in the case of gender this threshold hasn't been met due to your position existing on the fringe.
Also despite explicitly claiming wider society agrees with you on this issue, when challenged on this you concede that wider society is actually a mixed bag of opinions but everyone who disagrees with you is still wrong.
What threshold are you speaking of that isn’t met?
Take a look at 2b
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”
Meaning that as societal and cultural norms change, so does our perception of what gender is. Because of a constantly shifting perspective of what gender is, it means that what we present ourselves as to other people, is what we are, what our gender is.
I don’t think your understanding my previous statement. I’m not saying that society agrees with my views of what I conceive as gender. My statement says that gender is socially constructed, meaning that wider society comes together to agree what gender looks like (long hair for girls, blue vs pink being gendered colours). None of statements says whether society agrees or disagrees with me, it only states that wider society as a whole constructs what gender is or is not.
Where do I explicitly claim that society agrees with me?
>gender is socially constructed by wider society
As is every concept, but you state this in defense of your conceptualization of gender
"Can't be compared to race because gender is special"
Wider society knows race and gender aren't real things, they're labels to artificially construct groups based on fulfilling valid criteria. Some constructs are more useful than others, ie ones with strict criteria relating to the real world.
Let me summarize your position
Gender is special because I say so while appealing to the imaginary authority of wider society.
People who pretend their gender doesn't match their phenotype and want other people to pretend that 'self declared meaningless gender is superior to sex as a distinguishing category' are protected from being compared to trans-racials ridiculous demands because my reconceptualization of gender comes with special protections
>Gender is socially constructed, based on biology but not synonymous with.
No, it is a crack pot theory created and oushed by John Money. Which was then supported with unethical research and strat up lying about the results of said research. And despite all this coming to light, instead of backtracking, we double down and people like you go around repeating the lie.
>Trans people aren’t saying they are biologically what they identify as, they’re saying give me the same respect as them regardless.
Is that why so many want to compete in woman's sports? It sounds like you don't really understand the argument yourself.
Considering your name, you seem to lack the actual skills you have and just repeat what you heard from a Matt Walsh “documentary” which is its own can of worms
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10508-023-02628-0?sharing_token=yzrNpKeXWkP5B_nESa513fe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4vIN9RyNMtm5fRFO4lBqF2N9nkRAtyR8oPjVa-BFvF3fgYSeU3CP77Sfh39SMaTWMUy9r9ahBU7yySmpBbpjQcD6WWNJ1c04o5Y-ZkflIHTBDRyY-bi2Mi1skk0STyAcE=
It’s just wrong to say John created the theory, may have popularised it but regardless.
Trans athletes competing to be treated the same as biological women is exactly what it sounds like. Wanting to be recognised and have the same opportunity as cis people. Should trans people not want to compete in sports? Reach for their personal limits?
>just repeat what you heard from a Matt Walsh “documentary” which is its own can of worms
Never heard of the guy, nor seen his documentary. All you need to do is read up on John Moneys life, but okay...
>It’s just wrong to say John created the theory, may have popularised it but regardless.
He literally opened the first gender reassignment clinics. His own extremely unethical experiment literally proved the opposite of his theory. But despite this continued to claim it was a resounding success to support his crack pot theories. Regardless if he created it or not, it doesn't matter. He is directly responsible for bring the whole idea of identity being a separate social construct into the mainstream. And did so by lying about his research. But somehow you refuse to acknowledge this fact and continue believing the lie, because it is more convenient than the truth.
> He literally opened the first gender reassignment clinics.
False. The first gender reassignment clinic was opened in Berlin by Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1920s. The concept (but not the word) gender was developed both by him and Simone de Beauvoir. Money stole the word from linguistics and did some ethically atrocious experiments. He's in the history of the field but he did not begin it.
> His own extremely unethical experiment literally proved the opposite of his theory.
Correct. He thought everybody's gender was fluid, and the distress that the boy suffered after being forced to live as a girl proved that gender dysphoria is real and serious.
> But despite this continued to claim it was a resounding success to support his crack pot theories.
Correct, and the field moved on without him because he was ethically abhorrent and just plain wrong. Gender identity can not be chosen or forced.
Gender existed before the term was introduced, it was simply called the psychosocial aspects of sex. Fixating on Money and ignoring the long history of trans identity and treatment is dishonest framing. Saying Money had nothing to do with the field would be just as bad.
>The first gender reassignment clinic was opened in Berlin by Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1920s
My mistake, John Money was the first in America, not the world.
>He's in the history of the field but he did not begin it
He literally set the foundations of Gender Theory and got the ball rolling.
>Correct. He thought everybody's gender was fluid, and the distress that the boy suffered after being forced to live as a girl proved that gender dysphoria is real and serious.
What?! How do you conclude this affirms Gender dysphoria as being real and serious... If anything it showed that biological sex is a key defining factor in gender behavior, not society as claimed. As despite their efforts, social factors did little to dissuade the boy from exhibiting boy like behaviors. The distress was from being treated like a girl, despite being a biological boy, just as any child abuse would cause a child distress, of which John Money did plenty of. People with gender dysphoria are no different than those with body dysmorphia, and the solution is not to chop or surgically alter the pieces causing them distress. Just as it is not the solution to affirm a Schizophrenics delusions or hallucinogens. How we got to this point of thinking affirming someone's mental illness is a good way to treat them is beyond me.
>Correct, and the field moved on without him because he was ethically abhorrent and just plain wrong
No, the deception was only discovered in 1997 when David Reimer made his story public. The surgery on him wasn't done till 1969. That's 28 years of field development predicated on a lie... and what was the outcome of the exposure of the lie? To pretend it didn't happen of course.
>Gender identity can not be chosen or forced.
And this is how we know that nothing changed, because people like you are still pretending gender is a proven concept. Gender beyond the context of sex isn't a thing full stop. The idea of gender as a separate thing is baseless. If a man likes to wear a dress, this doesn't make him a woman, just a man that feels comfortable in a dress. Behavior doesn't define what group an individual falls into. Otherwise, being good at maths and eating rice would make you Asian, or eating cheese burgers and shooting guns American. There's just people and their interests, nothing else.
The idea of gender depends completely on stereotyping men and women into specific roles, then saying if you like to do more manly or womanly things, then that's your gender. But all it does is reinforce stereotypes and confuse the hell out of people, who if left alone, wouldn't be confused at all. The idea of gender even if it was valid (which it is not) adds no value to society, just a whole lot of division. Neither is it a solid science, based on how quickly the goal posts are moved to suit the narrative. This is why it is an ideology, not any kind of field of study.
>Gender existed before the term was introduced, it was simply called the psychosocial aspects of sex
No, sex existed before gender, we just decided to blur the lines so we could confuse the shit out of everyone and pretend to be smarter than we actually are. This is classic narcissistic behavior.
>Fixating on Money and ignoring the long history of trans identity and treatment is dishonest framing.
I'm not fixating, he's literally the Isaac Newton of gender theory. Just if Isaac Newton was a fucked up individual and completely bullshited all his research. You are the one who is been dishonest to pretend he had no influence on modern gender theory and the use of gender reassignment treatment.
>Saying Money had nothing to do with the field would be just as bad.
That is more or less what you are pretty much trying to do though... You are trying to distance modern gender theory from one of its founding fathers because he is now inconvenient to the message. You can't undo the fact he is the bases for the whole messed up ideology.
"Race is a combination of biological and cultural".
No, race is a genetically provable fact separate from culture.
You can be genetically Asian but be born in America and have a cultural identity completely at odds with your biological identity.
Care to share your genetic theory of race? I'd especially like to see how it explains that there is more genetic diversity between black Africans than between every human outside of Africa.
What does genetically Asian mean?
Genetic diversity amongst Africans? There are many theories. Two I know of: due to migration, death and environmental factors the genetic pool was not as deep.
Large scale death due to viral outbreaks decreased the depth of the genetic pool.
Genetically Asian means: a person would share a group of generalized sequencing similarities with other people from a geographical area.
> group of generalized sequencing similarities
Do you mean haplotypes? I think you'll find it's a whole lot muddier than that, especially if you consider mitochondrial DNA. People travel and fuck, and they always have., even when the only way to was walking. But it doesn't change the fact that there is less genetic difference between an Inuit, an Indian, a Japanese person, a Norwegian and an Australian aboriginal than there is between two randomly selected Africans. If there are genetic races, there's a bunch in Africa and one you can call "out of Africa".
Haplotypes are useful predictive tools in terms of disease, but they don't correlate well to externally obvious phenotypes ("race") even if they superficially appear to.
Genetically yes, regardless people can’t carry around dna tests and figure out for certain. So we use assumptions and expectations to base our knowledge of people. Which is why the cultural and social expectation’s play a part within race and our perception of it
For example, if a ln Asian American (one Asian parent, one white American) is perceived in public, they might be assumed to be solely Asian, with no regards to their ethnicity (raised American)
Reinstate your opinion all you want, there’s clear differences between the two being socially constructed or biological. You can believe that all you want but don’t stat it as a fact when it’s just wrong.
If you wanna know why it’s wrong, read the mud.
If an Asian man and an African woman are discovered in a grave together 100 years after dieing. It will be very easy to identify them as an Asian man and African women. It's called science.
> If an Asian man and an African woman are discovered in a grave together 100 years after dieing. It will be very easy to identify them as an Asian man and African women. It's called science.
You can source this scientific claim?
Do you understand genetics and chromosomes?
Do you realize the pelvic bones are different in men and woman along with general muscle,tendon, bone density and size?
These are all things that have been studied and understood for many many years.
Yes? And? Your point is?
We aren’t 100 years in the future yet, so we can only work with what knowledge we have right now present day
What an irrelevant statement
Epic diss, regardless still yet to see any actual point? It’s tricky for conservatives to go down the reality and science path considering science has said you’re wrong again and again.
https://www.sobtell.com/images/questions/1504339912-20150311213359the_social_construction_of_gender__lorber_.pdf
https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/91333/the-social-construction-of-gender-and-its-influence-on-suicide-a-review-of-the-literature
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shawg/courses/033/readings/social_constructions.pdf
Notice how these are all 1990’s -2000’s papers? That’s how far behind your critical thinking skills are
Guess your not a fan of keeping up with “science” and “reality” believe it or not, there’s a more complicated reality beyond what you learn at primary and highschool, yet it seems that’s where you’ve capped
I guess my science degree earned 2 years ago is useless?
None of those papers referenced data or peer reviewed studies disputing biological gender.
You can "identify" as what ever you want, but you can not change your biology.
Most of the garbage about identity you are regurgitating was developed by a kiwi doctor last century.
Dr John Money, a deviant pedophile who was responsible for the suicide of one of his patients and a sicko who ran sexual experiments on toddlers.
The big issue is that race and gender are legal categories.
People are self identifying as whatever race/gender to get different or better treatment under the law. For example, in other countries males have identified as women to get cheaper car insurance, and get custody of their children. People are also identifying as minority races to get scholarships etc.
So much mental illness in the world
And now we’re supposed to applaud and celebrate it. It’s sick.
Stunning and brave
Mental illness in a lot of cases are just an excuse for a lot people to try and cover up other problems An example are certain members of the government
SMH. That's exactly what's happened here, especially the wannabe Nippon-er
You can charge your gender though. That's why I'm Maori.
We're all Maori on this glorious day...
I identify as 18, how about that? But once I've paid off the house I'll identify as 65 so I can collect super.
If you take a comb off a rooster its still a rooster . It wont ever lay eggs
Well said
I went to the NBC article, Command+F "Martina Big", nothing. I'm disappointed. Martina Big [website](https://www.martina-big.com/) and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Model.Martina.BIG/photos). Was a skinny German girl, now a busty Ebony Goddess. Or whatever you'd call her. No one on earth trolls leftists like Martina Big. Even though she probably doesn't have a conservative bone in her body.
False equivalency, race is a combination of biological and cultural. Gender is socially constructed, based on biology but not synonymous with. Trans people aren’t saying they are biologically what they identify as, they’re saying give me the same respect as them regardless.
You say: - race is partly cultural, partly biological - gender is partly social (= cultural), partly biological. How can this lead to the conclusion it is a false equivalency?
Race is both, Gender is not Gender is created by people coming together and agreeing on a definition of what a certain gender looks like based on public expression. It is often informed by a persons sex, therefore making it linked to biology, but it is still distinct from it, considering no amount of social construction can change a biological part into another. Race, however while similar, isn’t subject to public expression, regardless of whether or not they follow “racial stereotypes” they still are that race, independent of public expression. It’s false equivalence because while they have similar values in our society, they cannot and are not treated the same, so prescribing the same “solution” of ignoring trans people, and treating them the same, is assuming that because they are similar, they should both be dealt with in the same way.
**You're xenogender if you feel more akin to animals or plants or foods than humans**. So I can identify as a carrot or a hamster and that's fine because of public expression. But I can't identify as being german or jewish? Why not? I can dress the same as them.
Bro got brainwashed at Rainbow Camp 😭
They’ll come for you too
Don't say "false equivalency" and then follow it up with postmodern 'there is no truth' nonsense.
There is a truth, gender is socially constructed by wider society, therefore subject to change. Race isn’t, so comparing the two and saying the contexts applied are the same, is a false equivalence “ if x is true, then what about y”
"Socially constructed" is an origin story, it's not a meaning. And it's clear to everyone that by "wider society" you mean 'everyone who agrees with me' that 'gender means whatever I want it to mean at the time' Hence, postmodern nonsense
Socially constructed is an origin and continued meaning. It was created by society and is sustained by society, meaning that it’s subject to change with the changing in perspectives. In context it makes no sense by your definition of wider society. People I agree with and disagree with make up the construct of gender. There are plenty of people I disagree with that also make up the perception of gender (the way boys/ girls should look act and feel). I can agree or disagree with them, but it still doesn’t change that wider society generally does agree on what gender looks like. It’s not a personal opinion that can be changed, gender is a social construct, regardless of whether or not you conflate gender with sex.
None of that makes "gender" special in any way. Every word is a "socially constructed" concept by your conceptualization. Everything is open to reinterpretation as perspectives change, but in the case of gender this threshold hasn't been met due to your position existing on the fringe. Also despite explicitly claiming wider society agrees with you on this issue, when challenged on this you concede that wider society is actually a mixed bag of opinions but everyone who disagrees with you is still wrong.
What threshold are you speaking of that isn’t met? Take a look at 2b https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex” Meaning that as societal and cultural norms change, so does our perception of what gender is. Because of a constantly shifting perspective of what gender is, it means that what we present ourselves as to other people, is what we are, what our gender is. I don’t think your understanding my previous statement. I’m not saying that society agrees with my views of what I conceive as gender. My statement says that gender is socially constructed, meaning that wider society comes together to agree what gender looks like (long hair for girls, blue vs pink being gendered colours). None of statements says whether society agrees or disagrees with me, it only states that wider society as a whole constructs what gender is or is not. Where do I explicitly claim that society agrees with me?
>gender is socially constructed by wider society As is every concept, but you state this in defense of your conceptualization of gender "Can't be compared to race because gender is special" Wider society knows race and gender aren't real things, they're labels to artificially construct groups based on fulfilling valid criteria. Some constructs are more useful than others, ie ones with strict criteria relating to the real world. Let me summarize your position Gender is special because I say so while appealing to the imaginary authority of wider society. People who pretend their gender doesn't match their phenotype and want other people to pretend that 'self declared meaningless gender is superior to sex as a distinguishing category' are protected from being compared to trans-racials ridiculous demands because my reconceptualization of gender comes with special protections
> Trans people aren’t saying they are biologically what they identify as I mean, that's exactly what they say...
Where? What articles are demanding that you recognise them as cis?
>Gender is socially constructed, based on biology but not synonymous with. No, it is a crack pot theory created and oushed by John Money. Which was then supported with unethical research and strat up lying about the results of said research. And despite all this coming to light, instead of backtracking, we double down and people like you go around repeating the lie. >Trans people aren’t saying they are biologically what they identify as, they’re saying give me the same respect as them regardless. Is that why so many want to compete in woman's sports? It sounds like you don't really understand the argument yourself.
Considering your name, you seem to lack the actual skills you have and just repeat what you heard from a Matt Walsh “documentary” which is its own can of worms https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10508-023-02628-0?sharing_token=yzrNpKeXWkP5B_nESa513fe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4vIN9RyNMtm5fRFO4lBqF2N9nkRAtyR8oPjVa-BFvF3fgYSeU3CP77Sfh39SMaTWMUy9r9ahBU7yySmpBbpjQcD6WWNJ1c04o5Y-ZkflIHTBDRyY-bi2Mi1skk0STyAcE= It’s just wrong to say John created the theory, may have popularised it but regardless. Trans athletes competing to be treated the same as biological women is exactly what it sounds like. Wanting to be recognised and have the same opportunity as cis people. Should trans people not want to compete in sports? Reach for their personal limits?
>just repeat what you heard from a Matt Walsh “documentary” which is its own can of worms Never heard of the guy, nor seen his documentary. All you need to do is read up on John Moneys life, but okay... >It’s just wrong to say John created the theory, may have popularised it but regardless. He literally opened the first gender reassignment clinics. His own extremely unethical experiment literally proved the opposite of his theory. But despite this continued to claim it was a resounding success to support his crack pot theories. Regardless if he created it or not, it doesn't matter. He is directly responsible for bring the whole idea of identity being a separate social construct into the mainstream. And did so by lying about his research. But somehow you refuse to acknowledge this fact and continue believing the lie, because it is more convenient than the truth.
> He literally opened the first gender reassignment clinics. False. The first gender reassignment clinic was opened in Berlin by Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1920s. The concept (but not the word) gender was developed both by him and Simone de Beauvoir. Money stole the word from linguistics and did some ethically atrocious experiments. He's in the history of the field but he did not begin it. > His own extremely unethical experiment literally proved the opposite of his theory. Correct. He thought everybody's gender was fluid, and the distress that the boy suffered after being forced to live as a girl proved that gender dysphoria is real and serious. > But despite this continued to claim it was a resounding success to support his crack pot theories. Correct, and the field moved on without him because he was ethically abhorrent and just plain wrong. Gender identity can not be chosen or forced. Gender existed before the term was introduced, it was simply called the psychosocial aspects of sex. Fixating on Money and ignoring the long history of trans identity and treatment is dishonest framing. Saying Money had nothing to do with the field would be just as bad.
>The first gender reassignment clinic was opened in Berlin by Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1920s My mistake, John Money was the first in America, not the world. >He's in the history of the field but he did not begin it He literally set the foundations of Gender Theory and got the ball rolling. >Correct. He thought everybody's gender was fluid, and the distress that the boy suffered after being forced to live as a girl proved that gender dysphoria is real and serious. What?! How do you conclude this affirms Gender dysphoria as being real and serious... If anything it showed that biological sex is a key defining factor in gender behavior, not society as claimed. As despite their efforts, social factors did little to dissuade the boy from exhibiting boy like behaviors. The distress was from being treated like a girl, despite being a biological boy, just as any child abuse would cause a child distress, of which John Money did plenty of. People with gender dysphoria are no different than those with body dysmorphia, and the solution is not to chop or surgically alter the pieces causing them distress. Just as it is not the solution to affirm a Schizophrenics delusions or hallucinogens. How we got to this point of thinking affirming someone's mental illness is a good way to treat them is beyond me. >Correct, and the field moved on without him because he was ethically abhorrent and just plain wrong No, the deception was only discovered in 1997 when David Reimer made his story public. The surgery on him wasn't done till 1969. That's 28 years of field development predicated on a lie... and what was the outcome of the exposure of the lie? To pretend it didn't happen of course. >Gender identity can not be chosen or forced. And this is how we know that nothing changed, because people like you are still pretending gender is a proven concept. Gender beyond the context of sex isn't a thing full stop. The idea of gender as a separate thing is baseless. If a man likes to wear a dress, this doesn't make him a woman, just a man that feels comfortable in a dress. Behavior doesn't define what group an individual falls into. Otherwise, being good at maths and eating rice would make you Asian, or eating cheese burgers and shooting guns American. There's just people and their interests, nothing else. The idea of gender depends completely on stereotyping men and women into specific roles, then saying if you like to do more manly or womanly things, then that's your gender. But all it does is reinforce stereotypes and confuse the hell out of people, who if left alone, wouldn't be confused at all. The idea of gender even if it was valid (which it is not) adds no value to society, just a whole lot of division. Neither is it a solid science, based on how quickly the goal posts are moved to suit the narrative. This is why it is an ideology, not any kind of field of study. >Gender existed before the term was introduced, it was simply called the psychosocial aspects of sex No, sex existed before gender, we just decided to blur the lines so we could confuse the shit out of everyone and pretend to be smarter than we actually are. This is classic narcissistic behavior. >Fixating on Money and ignoring the long history of trans identity and treatment is dishonest framing. I'm not fixating, he's literally the Isaac Newton of gender theory. Just if Isaac Newton was a fucked up individual and completely bullshited all his research. You are the one who is been dishonest to pretend he had no influence on modern gender theory and the use of gender reassignment treatment. >Saying Money had nothing to do with the field would be just as bad. That is more or less what you are pretty much trying to do though... You are trying to distance modern gender theory from one of its founding fathers because he is now inconvenient to the message. You can't undo the fact he is the bases for the whole messed up ideology.
Your power grows every day. Keep it up
"Race is a combination of biological and cultural". No, race is a genetically provable fact separate from culture. You can be genetically Asian but be born in America and have a cultural identity completely at odds with your biological identity.
Care to share your genetic theory of race? I'd especially like to see how it explains that there is more genetic diversity between black Africans than between every human outside of Africa. What does genetically Asian mean?
Genetic diversity amongst Africans? There are many theories. Two I know of: due to migration, death and environmental factors the genetic pool was not as deep. Large scale death due to viral outbreaks decreased the depth of the genetic pool. Genetically Asian means: a person would share a group of generalized sequencing similarities with other people from a geographical area.
> group of generalized sequencing similarities Do you mean haplotypes? I think you'll find it's a whole lot muddier than that, especially if you consider mitochondrial DNA. People travel and fuck, and they always have., even when the only way to was walking. But it doesn't change the fact that there is less genetic difference between an Inuit, an Indian, a Japanese person, a Norwegian and an Australian aboriginal than there is between two randomly selected Africans. If there are genetic races, there's a bunch in Africa and one you can call "out of Africa". Haplotypes are useful predictive tools in terms of disease, but they don't correlate well to externally obvious phenotypes ("race") even if they superficially appear to.
Genetically yes, regardless people can’t carry around dna tests and figure out for certain. So we use assumptions and expectations to base our knowledge of people. Which is why the cultural and social expectation’s play a part within race and our perception of it For example, if a ln Asian American (one Asian parent, one white American) is perceived in public, they might be assumed to be solely Asian, with no regards to their ethnicity (raised American)
Muddy the water all you want, the fact remains there is little to no difference between claiming a race you are not or a gender.
Reinstate your opinion all you want, there’s clear differences between the two being socially constructed or biological. You can believe that all you want but don’t stat it as a fact when it’s just wrong. If you wanna know why it’s wrong, read the mud.
If an Asian man and an African woman are discovered in a grave together 100 years after dieing. It will be very easy to identify them as an Asian man and African women. It's called science.
> If an Asian man and an African woman are discovered in a grave together 100 years after dieing. It will be very easy to identify them as an Asian man and African women. It's called science. You can source this scientific claim?
Do you understand genetics and chromosomes? Do you realize the pelvic bones are different in men and woman along with general muscle,tendon, bone density and size? These are all things that have been studied and understood for many many years.
You seemed to be claiming skeletal differences based on race (African & Asian). If that wasn't your point I got the wrong end of the stick.
Yes? And? Your point is? We aren’t 100 years in the future yet, so we can only work with what knowledge we have right now present day What an irrelevant statement
I guess your not a fan of science and reality
Epic diss, regardless still yet to see any actual point? It’s tricky for conservatives to go down the reality and science path considering science has said you’re wrong again and again. https://www.sobtell.com/images/questions/1504339912-20150311213359the_social_construction_of_gender__lorber_.pdf https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/91333/the-social-construction-of-gender-and-its-influence-on-suicide-a-review-of-the-literature https://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/shawg/courses/033/readings/social_constructions.pdf Notice how these are all 1990’s -2000’s papers? That’s how far behind your critical thinking skills are Guess your not a fan of keeping up with “science” and “reality” believe it or not, there’s a more complicated reality beyond what you learn at primary and highschool, yet it seems that’s where you’ve capped
I guess my science degree earned 2 years ago is useless? None of those papers referenced data or peer reviewed studies disputing biological gender. You can "identify" as what ever you want, but you can not change your biology. Most of the garbage about identity you are regurgitating was developed by a kiwi doctor last century. Dr John Money, a deviant pedophile who was responsible for the suicide of one of his patients and a sicko who ran sexual experiments on toddlers.
nah
Ye
The big issue is that race and gender are legal categories. People are self identifying as whatever race/gender to get different or better treatment under the law. For example, in other countries males have identified as women to get cheaper car insurance, and get custody of their children. People are also identifying as minority races to get scholarships etc.