Race is a social construct.......

vaginitis

Totally debunked
bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-49599148/this-leukaemia-sufferer-is-searching-the-world-against-the-odds-for-a-stem-cell-donor

This leukaemia sufferer is searching the world against the odds for a stem cell donor
A half-Nigerian, half-German woman is desperately searching the world for a stem-cell donor.
Astrid has leukaemia. However, due to her mixed race, her chances of finding a match are extremely unlikely.
That's because global stem cell registries do not reflect the world's diversity. The majority of registered donors are white. Only 3% of stem cell donors worldwide are mixed race.

A simple google search for "mixed race organ transplant" will bring up many results saying the same thing, organ transplants between races is not successful, so why is "Race is a social construct" being pushed as fact?
Is this another example of feeling being preferred over facts, it feels better to say we are all the same , when the facts state differently.

Certain aspects of race are a social construct.

Others aren’t - for example physiological differences across races are very much paid attention to by pharmaceutical companies as certain races metabolise certain drugs quicker/slower than others leading to inconsistencies in therapy. These differences are known and accounted for in dosage regimen administered by doctors.

Hence for doctors and many scientists the idea for the existence of race is widely accepted.

ancapailldorcha

Race is a social construct. Ethnicity is not. The latter is what is making it so hard for this woman to find a donor.

vaginitis

Batrachotox wrote: »

C

Hence for doctors and many scientists the idea for the existence of race is widely accepted.

Careful now, thats a ban worthy position round these parts

Chris_Heilong

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

Mickeroo

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race, not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

Even you thinking nothing is a social construct is a social construct.

biko

vaginitis wrote: »

The majority of registered donors are white. Only 3% of stem cell donors worldwide are mixed race.

Non-whites need to step up and take some responsibility.

jimgoose

When searching for donor organs or material, a genetic match is sought regardless of ethnicity or race. It stands to reason that it is rather easier to find a suitable genetic match within the same race/ethnicity than outside, simply because the amount of interbreeding within the same race/ethnicity is so much greater. There isn't much here to suggest that race "is" or "is not" anything, except to suggest that interracial relations are good for everybody.

Quantum Erasure

jimgoose wrote: »

There isn't much here to suggest that race "is" or "is not" anything, except to suggest that interracial relations are good for everybody.

inter-what-now?

Sonics2k

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

Don't be silly. Lot's of things are a social construct. Law, marriage, housing, healthcare and so on.

Race itself means little, ethnicity is something else entirely.

Chris_Heilong

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

I'd argue 99% of gender is a social construct

ILoveYourVibes

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Race is a social construct.

I don't believe cultural identity is a social construct.

However why the op is bringing a poor woman's condition into this debate is beyond me. It seems in poor taste.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd argue 99% of gender is a social construct

And everyone including trans people would disagree with you.

This is a very obtuse thread overflowing with idiotic premises, strawman arguments, an abject absence of nuance and the standard, lamentable level of ignorance which marks this topic where anything which counters this idiocy is dismissed as "political correctness".

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd argue 99% of gender is a social construct

Go ahead. I need a laugh. Do you believe the earth is flat too? Or how about the moon, it’s it really made of cheese.

suicide_circus

the idea that most everything is a social construct is a desperate attempt to feel like we have more control over our lives than we actually do.

Hunky Monster

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Go ahead. I need a laugh. Do you believe the earth is flat too? Or how about the moon, it’s it really made of cheese.

Outside of our chromosomes, hormones and physical attributes as a result of those; everything is decided (conscious or otherwise) by the individual and those decisions are influenced by society.

jam_mac_jam

If she is half German is she not more likely to find a match then somebody who is completely Nigerian if there are less Nigerian people then white people on the register. This does not make any logical sense.

You think this completely debunks race being a social construct? This one case?

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

And everyone including trans people would disagree with you.

Well trans people certainly seem to believe that they can change their gender. That leads me to believe its somewhat constructed by us.

ancapailldorcha

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't believe cultural identity is a social construct.

However why the op is bringing a poor woman's condition into this debate is beyond me. It seems in poor taste.

Cultural identity is pretty much the quintessential social construct. It's completely artificial. I'm not saying that it;s trivial, just that it's something that people invented solely themselves.

vaginitis

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

You think this completely debunks race being a social construct? This one case?

content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

From a time when the media was not woke, plenty more examples to be found for those who have open eyes and are not wearing blinkers

suicide_circus

Achebe wrote: »

People who say "nothing is a social construct" are just demonstrating their own ignorance.

some things are. but a lot of the things which are claimed to be are not.

Pawwed Rig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well trans people certainly seem to believe that they can change their gender. That leads me to believe its somewhat constructed by us.

With alot of drugs and surgery though No?

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

Social constructs exist because humans name things. The problem is with believing that because we name something we create or “construct” it. This is literally what the post structuralists believe.

jam_mac_jam

vaginitis wrote: »

content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html

From a time when the media was not woke, plenty more examples to be found for those who have open eyes and are not wearing blinkers

So you don't my question, just ramble on about wokeness.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

So, naming a child as a boy or girl at birth on a cert does two things:

1) it legally creates a gender. The legal gender is totally a social construct. For example a legal female couldn’t vote, had different rights historically. This is clearly social - something only humans do.
2) it acknowledges the underlying sex of the child.

Of course some social construction does act on humans even outside the legal system, if a female child is expected to act more demurely than her nature or a male child more agressive than his nature. Post structuralists think all differences are totally social and deny (don’t even mention, really) biology. Men act male because they are socialised to do so, and women act female because of socialisation.

(I personally can’t see how this theory explains trans myself, as people should br trapped by social construction).

However, in reality, humans evolved like other animals and there are sex differences in humans as with many species and denying this leads to the absurdity of biological males in female sports.

Turtyturd

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

With alot of drugs and surgery though No?

Would that not be changing/trying to change their sex?

Some man could go out tomorrow and say they identify as a female and adhere to the socially constructed idea of what it is to be of the female gender without all that.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Turtyturd wrote: »

Would that not be changing/trying to change their sex?

Some man could go out tomorrow and say they identify as a female and adhere to the socially constructed idea of what it is to be female without all that.

In law that’s now true in Ireland. There’s no need to really act female though.

James Brown

vaginitis wrote: »

Totally debunked
bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-49599148/this-leukaemia-sufferer-is-searching-the-world-against-the-odds-for-a-stem-cell-donor

This leukaemia sufferer is searching the world against the odds for a stem cell donor
A half-Nigerian, half-German woman is desperately searching the world for a stem-cell donor.
Astrid has leukaemia. However, due to her mixed race, her chances of finding a match are extremely unlikely.
That's because global stem cell registries do not reflect the world's diversity. The majority of registered donors are white. Only 3% of stem cell donors worldwide are mixed race.

A simple google search for "mixed race organ transplant" will bring up many results saying the same thing, organ transplants between races is not successful, so why is "Race is a social construct" being pushed as fact?
Is this another example of feeling being preferred over facts, it feels better to say we are all the same , when the facts state differently.

Socially we should all be the same. There are cultural differences but we are all human. Biologically there are obvious differences even within the same families.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Even the biologists are in on the anti biology action

https://twitter.com/thealiceroberts/status/1171727840116649986?s=21

Mrs OBumble

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Race is a social construct. Ethnicity is not. The latter is what is making it so hard for this woman to find a donor.

Except that you have the meaning of the two words swapped.

Race is biologically determined.

Ethnicity is socio-culturally determined.

Pawwed Rig

Turtyturd wrote: »

Some man could go out tomorrow and say they identify as a female and adhere to the socially constructed idea of what it is to be of the female gender without all that.

Does that happen in real life though barring a tiny minority?

Veritas Libertas

Race: a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group

Ethnicity: large group of people who have the same national, racial, or cultural origins, or the state of belonging to such a group

I find using the sociological definitions obfuscating and unnecessary(as evidenced by ancapaill's reply). Too often are they to blame in discussions today when we can't even agree on the definitions of words that had well-defined meaning because they have been hijacked by a group of people who use them to obscure and smear.

Let's be honest, when we use these words we use them interchangeably because to be ethnically part of a group also requires to be racially a part of that group(in most groups). Try moving to Japan and being considered ethnically Japanese- even generations down the line. Even when famous black people are mentioned as Irish, e.g. Paul McGrath, it's always done with a smile and a wink.

When people say 'race is a social construct' and they are using the sociological definition I find myself agreeing with them.

poisonated

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

Wrong. Sex is not a social construct but gender is. People wrongly use these as if they meant the same thing.

Veritas Libertas

poisonated wrote: »

Wrong. Sex is not a social construct but gender is. People wrongly use these as if they meant the same thing.

My argument(above) for race and ethnicity is the same as gender and sex.
Sociological definitions have hijacked these meanings when most often people use these words interchangeably.

1665/1666 of us are born either xx or xy and it is very easy to tell.

Sex:either of the two main categories (male and female)

Gender:either of the two sexes (male and female)

poisonated

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

My argument(above) for race and ethnicity is the same as gender and sex.
Sociological definitions have hijacked these meanings when most often people use these words interchangeably.

1665/1666 of us are born either xx or xy and it is very easy to tell.

Yes but that is just ignorant.

Veritas Libertas

poisonated wrote: »

Yes but that is just ignorant.

What is it ignorant of?

Wouldn't it be better if sociology types invented a new word instead of hijacking the word gender? Just like they did with race?
Instead these hijackers go around telling others they have got the definition of a word wrong, the cheek!!!!

poisonated

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What is it ignorant of?

Wouldn't it be better if sociology types invented a new word instead of hijacking the word gender? Just like they did with race?
Instead these hijackers go around telling others they have got the definition of a word wrong, the cheek!!!!

Lol....the cheek? Oxford dictionary defines gender as “either of the two sexes (male and female) WITH REFERENCE TO SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN BIOLOGICAL ONES”.... maybe you should write to them and tell them that their definition is wrong? You appear to be an expert after all.

Veritas Libertas

poisonated wrote: »

Lol....the cheek? Oxford dictionary defines gender as “either of the two sexes (male and female) WITH REFERENCE TO SOCIAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN BIOLOGICAL ONES”.... maybe you should write to them and tell them that their definition is wrong? You appear to be an expert after all.

From that same dictionary they state that since it's inception in the 14th century people have been using gender interchangeably with sex usually when referring to words as masculine and feminine. The word has been successfully hijacked by sociologists to the point of causing us all headaches.

Since the word sex has erotic qualities people prefer to use gender instead in polite society.

But here's the thing... even using the newer definition, the sentence "Gender is a social construct" becomes an empty and vacuous statement, watch.

Gender(The cultural and societal differences between men and women) are a social construct. It literally means nothing. Since society and culture and also 'constructs'.

During the 1970s, there was no consensus about how the terms were to be applied. In the 1974 edition of Masculine/Feminine or Human, the author uses "innate gender" and "learned sex roles", but in the 1978 edition, the use of sex and gender is reversed. By 1980, most feminist writings had agreed on using gender only for socioculturally adapted traits.

batgoat

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I find using the sociological definitions obfuscating and unnecessary(as evidenced by ancapaill's reply). Too often are they to blame in discussions today when we can't even agree on the definitions of words that had well-defined meaning because they have been hijacked by a group of people who use them to obscure and smear.

Let's be honest, when we use these words we use them interchangeably because to be ethnically part of a group also requires to be racially a part of that group(in most groups). Try moving to Japan and being considered ethnically Japanese- even generations down the line. Even when famous black people are mentioned as Irish, e.g. Paul McGrath, it's always done with a smile and a wink.

When people say 'race is a social construct' and they are using the sociological definition I find myself agreeing with them.

A smile and a wink when saying Paul McGrath is Irish? Nah that's nonsense... Non white people can be Irish regardless of the strange standards in your mind.

HailSatan

batgoat wrote: »

A smile and a wink when saying Paul O'Connell is Irish? Nah that's nonsense... Non white people can be Irish regardless of the strange standards in your mind.

What are you trying to say here - Paul O'Connell isn't white Irish?

Or are you just trying to prove how "colour blind" you are that you can mix up Paul O'Connell and Paul McGrath?

begbysback

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Nothing is a social construct, not race(used as a colloquial short hand for ethnicity), not gender, nothing and for anyone that learned that it was in collage or gender studies class then I am sorry but you have wasted your time.

If it weren’t for things like law, religion and class, and many others then this statement would have an element of truth.

batgoat

HailSatan wrote: »

What are you trying to say here - Paul O'Connell isn't white Irish?

Or are you just trying to prove how "colour blind" you are that you can mix up Paul O'Connell and Paul McGrath?

I was half asleep at that point... :P

Donnielighto

Race is shorthand for ethnicity. In that way it isn't a social construct, it's obvious enough that it isn't. Unless race is being used to distinguish within an ethnic group it isn't a social construct.


As an aside have race and ethnicity always had that difference, I thought a race of people had an ethnicity so they were linked.

HailSatan

batgoat wrote: »

I was half asleep at that point... :P

Dreaming about Paul O'Connell?

Veritas Libertas

Donnielighto wrote: »

As an aside have race and ethnicity always had that difference, I thought a race of people had an ethnicity so they were linked.

Maybe not so in Ireland and the five eyes, but pretty much anywhere else it would be difficult to be considered ethnically part of a group without also being 'racially of that group'. I think that this is the overlap that you mention.

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd argue 99% of gender is a social construct

Is that on the length or on the thickness?

LoughNeagh2017

I was given the option to opt into organ donation in my driving license renewal form, it gave me great pleasure in leaving it blank, the final display of misanthropy a man can make, imagine one of your organs going to some orange man or something, the thought isn't worth thinking about

Veritas Libertas

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I was given the option to opt into organ donation in my driving license renewal form,

I remember reading something from Dan Ariely (social psychologist-genius) that when the form gives the option to OPT OUT of organ donation instead of OPT INTO organ donation, then the organ donation rate shoots up massively.

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

it gave me great pleasure in leaving it blank,

We're just too lazy to check boxes :pac::D



(paper by Eric Johnson and Daniel Goldstein)

Finally, there is another cost, [...]that is the cost of making a decision. Since people consider this question aversive, there is some utility to defaults, which allow people not to make choices, as opposed to mandated choice paradigms. In fact, the current experience in
mandated choice is instructive. When the state of Virginia adopted a policy of forcing people to make a choice, over 24% refused to report a preference (25), consistent with the idea that forming a preference is cognitively costly. Defaults not only make a difference in what is chosen, they can also make decisions easier.

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

I remember reading something from Dan Ariely (social psychologist-genius) that when the form gives the option to OPT OUT OF organ donation instead of OPT INTO organ donation, then the organ donation rate shoots up massively.

Ariely is at kilkenomics this year again, a great mind

Veritas Libertas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Ariely is at kilkenomics this year again, a great mind

Thanks for the heads-up, I think I need to visit Kilkenny in November