"sex is a social construct" doesn't mean we're not describing physical reality, it means we can only do so through a socially built lens
-
-
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and "social construct" doesn't necessarily mean arbitrary or unmotivated or not bearing a correspondence to physicality
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @butaflye
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Social construct, doesn't it? I mean gender literally is *just* a cultural thing. I guess I thought that was the big distinction
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CandyForYrEnnui @butaflye
gender is a social phenomenon described using a social construct, sex is a physical phenomenon described using a social construct
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
so there are a lot of differences there but it's worth contemplating how the abstractions are leaky as hell in both cases
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @butaflye
Is there something that *isnt* described using social constructs? Seems like you're using it as synonymous with "socially made language" /1
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
When, in my experience, it's been used to describe if a thing is grounded social or physical events
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm also not saying we shouldn't have better language to describe sex- we should! idk if it's a social construct just bc it's not accurate
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
it's not inaccuracy that makes it so, just the limits of epistemology. our words can't encompass phenomena, phenomena are too nuanced
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.