Because I think language is a useful tool and it makes sense to reflect relevant and obvious differences in language.
-
-
we're talking about a thing, barring brain-in-a-jar hypothesis, but we can't embed a thing in our speech, only a social convention about it
-
and "social construct" doesn't necessarily mean arbitrary or unmotivated or not bearing a correspondence to physicality
-
Okay but we build all language through a socially built lens, and describing it that way takes some meaning out of describing gender as a /1
-
Social construct, doesn't it? I mean gender literally is *just* a cultural thing. I guess I thought that was the big distinction
-
gender is a social phenomenon described using a social construct, sex is a physical phenomenon described using a social construct
-
so there are a lot of differences there but it's worth contemplating how the abstractions are leaky as hell in both cases
-
Is there something that *isnt* described using social constructs? Seems like you're using it as synonymous with "socially made language" /1
-
yup you caught me, lol. to me, to a large extent it's just about a degree of humility about the tools you're using, map != territory
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.