Alex WellersteinVerified account

what i find interesting is that “social” is never necessary, not does it provide any additional information over simply saying something is constructed. it’s mainly used to either make a banal observation seem intellectual, or to assert some unreal blank-slatist perspective

It is meant to be in contrast with the idea that these things are "natural," for what it is worth. You might ask "why do it" but it is because these terms typically get applied to things people think are natural (like, say, the concept of race).

race is so “artificial” that 23andme includes ethnicity in results

So, Twitter in two acts: 1) "Social construct is dumb and not even interesting" 2) "OMG how dare you call race a social construct, it's in genes" (23andme does not at all use the concept of "race")

1) i’m a human, not “twitter” 2) ethnicities fit within categories of race 3) i was very clear that “social” in “social construct” is what is uninteresting, being that it is only used to make the banal seem intellectual or to assert blank slatery, both of which you did!

I just find it amusing that you assert that the term is uninteresting and nonthreatening, and then feel threatened when it is applied to something you find problematic. Ethnicity is not race, nor does 23andme mean them to be the same thing. Sorry. Look it up.

And asserting that race is a social construct does not mean a blank slate. Race is a complicated construction. Lots of books I would be happy to refer you to! I teach entire courses on this topic.

i’ve read enough books on it already, thanks. that you keep (incorrectly) asserting my emotional state (feel threatened? what?) leads me to believe you don’t have much to actually teach at all, just dogma you insist upon