all 6 comments

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Race is a political category, which in its modern form was invented in the 15th through 19th centuries by white people to justify colonialism, especially in America and western Europe. It is fundamentally defined by a set of shared political experiences and goals.

There is no unified view of race even within the west. Americans just constantly try to force their views onto everyone else and well meaning, but ignorant, people in our countries take up American race views because that's what they're heavily exposed to online.

Race is 100% a social construct. The exact same thing people claim gender is. There's no universal constant for race, different countries define races differently. The US says Arabs are white, the UK says Arabs are Asian.

Ethnicity is a cultural category, fundamentally defined by shared cultural history and frameworks.

This is also a social construct though. Culture is a construct. A man from Libya who immigrates to France, integrates into French society, and becomes a French citizen is French. There's no scientific way of proving Frenchness.

An American who claims his great, great grandmother was from Leiden so he is Dutch despite not even speaking the language is not Dutch.

Gender is a social category, fundamentally defined by expressions of aesthetics and personality.

Sex is a biological category. Gender is meaningless, it's not even a social construct since it's internally defined. To be a social construct it has to be defined by society, not by delusional individuals. There's a reason that most languages in the world don't even have a word for gender, because it means nothing.

How do you go onto r/askphilosophy to answer questions when you don't even have the most basic fucking understanding of anything?

[–]soundsituation 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

James Lindsay did a fantastic episode about this: Why You Can Be Transgender But Not Transracial. It's over two hours long but I found it well worth my time. And it's not a defense of transgenderism or a refutation of transracialism, but rather an explanation for why, from within the Critical Theory framework, one is seen as legitimate and the other isn't. It addresses both philosophy and incentive structures.

[–]YallHoes[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Please don't mind that nathan username. It's not my username. Not sure why a new username was archived along with the thread

[–]Chunkeeguy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's always the same nathan username when you archive a Reddit post.

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

Thank you for letting me know. I was so confused 😩