How to deal with the "social construct" argument?

submitted by UWUness from self.GenderCritical

When a TRA tells me "sex is a social construct", I lose it. That happened to me just now. I was told: https://twitter.com/robcmorgan/status/1458251092307980294

Age, weight and height are objective material facts about the world. Adult, race, [sex], species, love, football etc are social constructs. Age and weight would be there without humans, [so they aren't social constructs]; but species, race and sex are a layer we use to describe the world. Species [and sex] are not there to be discovered, we impose them [onto humans and other organisms].

I defined woman for the TRA and he told me: https://twitter.com/robcmorgan/status/1458244923904479233

You did offer a definition earlier, and I think it revealed that even biological sex is socially constructed. It's roughly "woman: having the kind of body that normally, ordinarily, healthily would have been capable of producing children". I think that's the right way to think about it, it's pretty good, and it doesn't mean that when we discovered genes we changed what we thought woman are (good), but it does fudge what you do with the edge cases, doesn't it? It's still not something you can measure.

You can measure DNA, which is an "invisible" protein which tells us which body to grow 99.x% of the time, and then we organise society around that body and its capacities. But what you measure isn't the sex.

I'm so frustrated 😭 How do I deal with the "social construct" argument?

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Humans are the only animals that create/invent "social constructs." Humans - Homo sapiens -are a relatively new/young species, and we are only one of the 8.7 million different plant and animal species known to exist. Depending on which source you cite, the human species first emerged between 50 and 200 thousands years ago. But there's documented evidence that organisms began sexually reproducing at least 1.2 billion years ago - and many biologists believe that sexual reproduction began more like 2 billion years ago.

To suggest that sex is a social construct that humans invented is incredibly arrogant. Humans are part of nature, not nature's originators.

If humans were to go extinct like the dinosaurs did, which is a very real possibility, millions of other species on planet Earth would still go on reproducing sexually. Millions of other animal and plant species would still come in two basic forms - male and female - and the only way they could procreate and perpetuate themselves would be by the merger of ova and sperm.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Humans are the only animals that create/invent "social constructs."

I'd argue that other social mammals (i.e. dogs and dolphins and the other great apes) also have socially-constructed roles (e.g. pack leader), though aligned to a more "classical" axis of power driven by biology and development (wherein older, more experienced members of the pack sit atop the social hierarchy.

However, in contrast to the types of created/invented/semantic social constructs which humans impose upon each other inorganically, the types found in animal species are [let's call it] inherited, in that they're assumed via consensus among all members and are intent-agnostic.

Only humans are distractible, gullible, and certain individuals frankly stupid enough to fall for the propagandistic, intent-antagonistic type of social engineering bullshit that is TWAW.

[–]Vari4 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because age and weight would be there without humans (as would sexual reproduction); but species, race and sex are a layer we use to describe the world. Species isn't there to be discovered, we impose it to describe how animals cluster.

I'd start by pointing out that concepts of sex and species being part of the natural world play a key role in our explanations of which animals can and cannot reproduce with each other.

Without sex and species being part of the natural we would have no explanation for why organisms of the same sex cannot reproduce and why organisms of different species cannot reproduce (with some interesting exceptions regarding things like mules and ring species).

If this cretin responds by arguing that you cannot tell someone's sex just by looking then you should respond by asking if they wanna make a bet.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sex exists in animals who have no society to speak of. It can't be a social construct if it exists in non-social species. Most big cats are asocial animals, they only get together for mating and they know exactly which sex each other is.

A social construct can't exist in asocial animals, and yet sex still exists and the cats still know what it is.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most big cats are asocial animals, they only get together for mating and they know exactly which sex each other is.

I would consider any species that needs to "get together" with others of their species for mating, or any other reason, to be social. After all, reproduction is a primary drive of all species.

Moreover, even amongst big cat groups where (some of) the (male) adults show what human observers historically have regarded as relatively little need for companionship, newborns and the young are very dependent on their mothers for nursing, food, affection, play, protection, education and various other kinds of interaction. As is the case with most mammals, big cat mothers are inherently nurturing and protective in a physical sense, and just as they suckle their offspring with milk from their teats they also tend to engage in a lot of social activities like nuzzling, licking and cuddling their young. Big cat mothers and their offspring are extremely social with one another.

Growing up, many members of big cat species are very involved with and bonded to the siblings they were born with as well - and some stay bonded to their siblings into and through adulthood.

Fact is, amongst the big cat species that some humans have characterized as "asocial" there are marked differences between the behaviors of adult males and adult females - and amongst males at different ages and stages of development. When equal attention and weight are given to the females of the species, and to the young as well as to adults, the claim that "most big cats are asocial" is quickly called into question.

The idea that "most big cats are asocial" is a conclusion reached by male scientists that is directly related to the fact that most of the humans who have observed and described big cat (and other) species in the literature over time were men, and these men have traditionally focused their observations on adult male members of the species they're interested in, and have assumed that the behavior of full-grown adult males represent the behaviors that are representative of, and the norm for, the entire species. Moreover, a lot of these male observers have arrived at conclusions about other species which often reflect their own preconceived biases rather than what's in front of their eyes: they've ignored the social interactions of mothers and their offspring because they consider females and children secondary and of little or no importance; their interest and focus has been on grown males of other species they regard as analogous to themselves.

Plus, sex exists in plants too.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Call them ugly men in dresses and when they act offended and call you transphobic, tell them that the offences they took and perveived transphobia are also social constructs and subjective and therefore don't matter.

[–]JasonNecks 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://www.readthesequences.com/Disputing-Definitions

This essay is the definitive end to all arguments over definitions.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's silly. A you can determine if a pair of animals are of the same species if the male and female of the population in question can create grandchildren via their offspring. You can determine any monkey wrenches thrown into that process (what if they're not male and female we're talking about, or what if we're talking about atypical members of a population) by going to the typical members of the population.

"the sex" refers to reproductive design and there are two and only two in our species. When they try to abstract sex into something other than reproduction, be it ladybrain, or that video of two dudes running around like they were auditioning for Prostitutes #3 and #4 in an 80s slasher flick, and then run with their "gender" bs (which is a social construct especially as they use it) then what can you do? They wallow in their own feces and expect you to join in? No. Exceptions do not invalidate definitions.

If their non-definitions work for them the would not need to convince people to use their non-definitions. Reproductive potential and capacity of the anatomy, no genes or anything else is needed. When it comes to the exceptions, let them define them. Male and female is pretty easy to define, and any exceptions do not alter that.

Also, stop interacting with idiots. No one on twitter is a real person anyway. The exceptions do not disprove that rule either.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not like this: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/09/21/terf-isnt-slur-hate-speech/

I’ve always asked if it’s a social construct, then why the cross-sex hormones?