DiscussMormonism.com

Why are the same people who insist that gender isn't real, also demand a female president (or female vice president)?

Saying that gender is a social construct isn't the same thing as saying gender isn't real. It's saying that gender is an emergent feature of cultural attitudes towards biological sex features.

Money is a social construct. Do you believe that money is not real? In that case, I'd like all of yours please.

Owned.

EAllusion wrote:Saying that gender is a social construct isn't the same thing as saying gender isn't real. It's saying that gender is an emergent feature of cultural attitudes towards biological sex features.

Money is a social construct. Do you believe that money is not real? In that case, I'd like all of yours please.

Cool dictionary that you never use. but in reality a social construct is not real, its the whole reason people slap the "social construct" label on something..... a mutual assumption is not tantamount to "being real". For example, you and your mom both agree that you are intelligent- but that is not "real".

And in fact, the argument from your ilk on this particular topic is always that gender is "not real". Your feeble blather notwithstanding, And how did you make the logical leap from the OP to some oddball presumption that i considered money isn't "real".

really?

To say something exists as a property of social attitudes is not to say those social attitudes aren't real things that have importance. It just means they the result of mental states rather than cleaved in nature apart from that. Gender, rather than biological sex, is a widely accepted example of this. There are many more though, and you interact with them all the time. Money is another classic example. Money, physically, is just paper and metal. What makes it money is the consequence of people's mental states.

Because socially constructed attitudes are a thing that exists, you can have opinions about what to do about them. That you're so cocksure of your ignorant argument just makes you look bad. You're trying to find self-contradiction where there is none.

And in fact, the argument from your ilk on this particular topic is always that gender is "not real".

I'm pretty sure that I belong to "my ilk" and I do not think anything like what you are proposing. Maybe next time you drop your corncob pipe in realization that you've caught those pointy head intellectuals in a trivial self-contradiction, maybe you should consider you don't actually understand the ideas you are interacting with.

EAllusion wrote:To say something exists as a property of social attitudes is not to say those social attitudes aren't real things that have importance....

keep digging bruh.
No one said the attitude didn't exist, but the attitude does not magically infuse "real" unto the imaginary.
So while you try to split hairs to save your feeble position on this matter, your own contradictory ideology becomes all the more real....real because of your attitude, right?
Point being, "female" is an attitude of convenience for weak minded embellishers like yourself. For you, female is an abstract social construct when weaponized against whatever you disagree with? yes sir! But when you are peacocking your 9/11 quad stories, female takes on a different, more biologically convenient, definition - oh yeah! And then "female" is a real "prop" for which you can polish your shiny knight armor, because the poor frail things need you to get justice for them...inasmuch as justice has been mutually agreed upon by you for them, of course......really.

Nothing to see here ... move along ...

subgenius wrote:No one said the attitude didn't exist, but the attitude does not magically infuse "real" unto the imaginary.

Philosophy with subs. Taxonomic classifications are socially constructed. That is to say, they are imposed metal categories on continuum of similarity and relatedness. No one thinks this means biologists are contradicting themselves when they talk about those categories.

I thought you said insects weren't real Dr. Smartypants.

When someone asserts that something is a social construct, they aren't asserting that it is therefore meaningless to talk about. They are asserting the referent is mental properties. So when someone talks about money, they think they are talking about collective trust in a medium of exchange rather than a queer property of the universe called "money." When someone talks about gender, the idea is they are talking about people's ideas about how gender categories should look and act, what roles in society they should have, etc.

Point being, "female" is an attitude of convenience for weak minded embellishers like yourself. For you, female is an abstract social construct when weaponized against whatever you disagree with? yes sir! But when you are peacocking your 9/11 quad stories, female takes on a different, more biologically convenient, definition - oh yeah! And then "female" is a real "prop" for which you can polish your shiny knight armor, because the poor frail things need you to get justice for them...inasmuch as justice has been mutually agreed upon by you for them, of course......really.

It's nice that you get to be dumb on message boards and don't have to take classes where you can just be failed.