Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I think this is roughly pointing to what I'm calling the layer for "useful maths conventions," and I agree that they're socially constructed, but don't find that a helpful lens to understand them much like I don't find that helpful for understanding e.g. typing or data structures

When we discuss gender, we have layers for things like culture-informed self-identification & the interpersonal norms that cause us to assume something that correlates w/ sex with very limited information about genotype + phenotype. "Social construct" seems a very diff term there

Like I said, I think there are not-necessarily-wrong ways to understand virtually everything as "socially constructed." But I think we need to either maintain careful conversational hygiene or use new terms if we're going to be talking about cultural stuff in the same breath

I think I disagree because one underlying aspect and strength of referring to it as a social construct is that it dispels the magic or alure of "facts don't care about your feelings, logic proves me right" belief structures.

Counterpoint: math is True with a capital T is the Motte to the facts don't care about your feelings, there are two genders, SJWs care too much about "fee-fees" Bailey.

I mean... it seems like you're choosing a factual claim — or at least, a lens on an area of epistemology — because it undermines the opinions of people you disagree with? FWIW I just don't think one's understanding of what math is has to imply anything about social ideology

Personally: I think it's silly to deny that there are ground mathematical truths, I think using the phrase "social construct" is v misleading on many of these layers, I don't think that facts care about your feelings, but I do think gender is complex & feelings matter a whole lot

I think ground mathematical truths are so buried in erudite axiomatic theories as to be useless to talk about! The ground truths are boring and even things like "not not P implies P" are serious contentious issues in modern math!