Thanks for stopping by to check us out

What evidence is there that race and ethnicity are biological (e.g. determined by genetics) and not social constructs?

Alright, so to start - what people mean by "race" is very obviously biological/genetic. "Black" parents can't give birth to "white" children or vice-versa. Everyone knows this. Second, everything humans ever made up to describe the world is a "social construct." "Species", "subspecies", etc. are "social constructs." To say something is a "social construct" implies nothing about the validity of the construct. It's a meaningless term.

Families are also social constructs. Where does your family begin and end? Are second cousins your "family"? Family also has different meanings in different cultures. It's just a social construct.

All I can see on the internet is that race and ethnicity do not represent real distinct categories of people.

This is just the dominant dogma reinforced by propaganda and the social consequences for stating otherwise. There's no strong evidence supporting such conclusions about human taxonomy. Sure, there might be blurry lines at the edges (What is "white" ??) but the archetypal example of one race will be very clearly different from an archetypal example of another

That race and ethnicity are social constructs that are not reflected biologically.

This is just not true. Best-fit genetic clusters correspond to "socially constructed" race 99.9% of the time.. Humans also have as much, or more, genetic variation than other animals with recognized subspecies do

Not going to bother reading your mainstream media sources. They just push narratives. Simply make the arguments here and I'll respond to them. Instead, I'll leave you with this piece by Ed Dutton - The Arguments Against "Race"

For instance, there is more genetic diversity within the continent of Africa than in the rest of the world combined

Well there should be - since humans originated in Africa. Humans who left Africa all descend from more or less the same founding individuals and left relatively recently (there were waves of migrations, but still). Regardless, the amount of genetic diversity between populations implies nothing about how meaningful that diversity is. For instance, you could have two populations who are very genetically diverse but look the same, because all the diversity is just random mutations that don't actually impact phenotype (good example might be like, Finns and Irish). On the other hand, you could have siblings who are genetically identical except one sibling has one copy of the recessive sickle-cell anemia gene, and the other has two. Obviously this extremely slight genetic difference will have very serious phenotypic consequences for the latter. Similarly, the amount of genetic diversity alone implies nothing about the validity of race.

yet we act like "black" is one category and all "black" people have more in common with each other than with any white individual.

Eh.. it depends on who you talk to. From the perspective of Europeans and in the context of American slavery, all Africans can be (and have been) lumped together because they are much more like each other than they are to us or other people outside of Africa. This is just convenient. Now, us professional racists know that a lot of different types of Africans exist - but all of them are pretty dark, antisocial, and low-IQ compared to us. So, it's not always practical to entertain these distinctions. It is true that humans have not operated as if there is an "official" racial taxonomy and just make up convenient words to describe other populations at their place in time. It would be nice if an official race/ethnicity taxonomy existed - but, this isn't done. At least, not in the West. Again, genetic diversity is historically not really a criterion for subspecies, it's all about phenotype. Same for races.

But this isn't true, because one particular black individual has more in common genetically with a particular white individual than another particular black individual.

This is a butchering of Lewontin's Fallacy. The idea that a black person is more genetically similar to a white person than another black person is literally never true if you include enough genes in your sample (and doesn't this argument strike you as absurd on it's face?)

plebbit link 1

First [deleted] commenter is mostly correct, replyguy is wrong as we've shown

There is more genetic variation between members of the same population than compared to members of a population on a different continent. That's why race as a biological category is problematic

Its just a dumb argument. Even if we pretended that naive genetic diversity was a necessary criterion for race/subspecies (it historically has not been), and that means that Africa has to have like 10+ races or something, then "fine" - there's 10 different kinds of africans, and also Europeans, East Asians, Indians, AmerIndians, whatever else. Does this really matter?

Ethnicity is also said to be a social construct

Again even families are social constructs, so they don't really exist

I was wondering if there is evidence to the contrary?

There's plenty. Look into race and IQ differences, heritability of IQ, race and crime, heritability of political views, race differences in brain size, differences in all kinds of skeleto-muscular traits like pelvis shape or femur length. Where to begin? Actually - start at AltHype's "Existence of Race".

Is there any evidence provided by scientists that race and ethnicity are biological (e.g. determined by genetics) and not social constructs

Again this "social construct" is a meaningless statement and I've provided plenty of evidence.

I have heard of major races, but can there be races within major races?

You mean ethnicities?

And is there a way to look at genes and find out someone's ethnicity?

Just apply a basic shit-test: If ethnicity isn't genetic, then how can 23&Me tell people what their ethnicity is based off their genetics? Use some common sense.

Also, I want to point out that this "social construct" BS only ever crops up when white people try to defend themselves. When the media talks about "White supremacy" or "white privilege" everyone knows what white is and who white people are. But, when white people want to group together and push back, suddenly race is just a "social construct" and we "don't even know what white is!" All other races are allowed to have advocacy groups, PACs, BLM etc. It's really dumb and obvious what the game is. If you don't think race is real, go to a BLM protest and tell them nicely to stop rioting because "black people don't even exist" since "race is a social construct" and see how well that works. Likewise, if you're not sure what "white" is, then ask your local feminist who has "white privilege" and who doesn't.

Again genuinely thanks for stopping by, and if you have specific questions about race/genetics/IQ whatever I can answer them. But, I'm about to start drinking and don't know how prompt I'll be in replying. Thankfully, "drunk" is a social construct and if I get bored I might still respond