Can you link to this study?

I understand that I might have more genetically in common with black people than other white people and the variations go on and on but...

no basis in biology?

Show me the studies.

is skin color race? No

are Italians white? Sort of

are white Africans black? No

Just because it’s not easy to study doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Parameters and definitions would have to be clarified

I agree.

And it’s only anecdotal but I do have a huge cock and a very high IQ.

Melanin isn’t a social construct. Neither is sickle cell anemia.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/data.html

Wow. The CDC differentiates by RACE so I guess malaria and sickle cell disease are social constructs. Alert the scientific community, immediately. The CDC acknowledges race so they must be racist and therefore must be wrong. Don’t worry black people. Whew. That’s a relief.

Fine. But your assertion that this is the ONLY differentiation is absurd in any century.

I listened until he laid out his thesis and that he’s not claiming there’s no biological difference just that it’s very much by in large extraordinarily blown out of proportion and exaggerated profoundly by culture I realize already agree and understand what he’s saying. It’s just the other extreme, a position he isn’t taking, that biology creates no distinction what-so-ever is also preposterous.

If you continued to watch you would have heard that superficial indicators like skin tone and hair texture are the most pronounced differences, along with suceptability to certain diseases.

if you manage to sit through the entire first video at least he basically breaks down how races don't match up with distinct genetic subgroups in any meaningful way. It's a social construct in that we categorize more based on looks than by genetics. Both sub Saharan Africans and Australian aboriginals fall under the category of black, even though they're not related genetically. And there's more genetic diversity in sub Saharan Africans than there is between certain "races."

Ill watch it but I already know that stuff.

I understand about the genetic diversity in sub Saharan Africa as well although that did surprise me when I first learned about it.

Honestly, I doubt we disagree on anything except for maybe how things should be worded.

elph on the other hand will not acknowledge anything that doesn’t reinforce what he already believes and wants to be true

Whatever.

His conclusion is based on evidence and the best science available.

Your conclusion is based on whether it supports your agenda.

This is the third time I’ve quoted this. Just be aware that this feigned objectivity may or may not support what you already believe. Sometimes the bias is liberal.

Gender as binary and non-binary, puberty blocking drugs for children who identify a certain way, Kinsey scale, bisexuality, homosexuality, fluid sexual presences, race, income and IQ, IQ and violence, IQ denialism, relevance of IQ, extra Y Chromosome, genetic markers, what can passed on through genetics, addiction as a disease, defining addiction, isolating genes for predisposition to anything, genetically modified food, babies with blue eyes, CRISPR, stem cell research, pain killers, rehabilitation, eliminating deafness, deaf culture genocide, human cloning, sterilization of mosquitos, vaccines, AI, militarization of space, demilitarization of everything

Foucault said we’re the most obedient people the world has ever known. We’re really at the mercy of science and technology.

The left isn’t powerless

Gender is less of a social construct than race. Gender roles are a key part of virtually any human society. That's not cause society creates them arbitrarily. It's cause our evolutionary pattern gives rise to said gender roles as a sort of pragmatic division of labor.

Yeah I'm not saying they're absolute

But as a general rule its safe to say usually men are the breadwinners and women are the nurturers, in most societies.

And this means that men and women are selected for based on different criteria, via sexual selection.

Which explains the basic difference between the genders.

I don't even know what a law of human nature means tbh

It's an adaptive feature of human evolution. We are a pair bonding species, and our children take a long time to raise. This means 2 parents was really a big plus in raising human children, especially during our hunter gatherer years (see: 95+% of our time on this planet) when they had to actually go out and hunt **** to live, something pregnant women and women with young kids straggling along don't excel at.

So the division of labor was an obvious evolutionary advantage. It's not like a rule that anyone is going to enforce. It's just a better way to do things, so the selective pressures push things in that general direction.

Sure but the context we evolved in was as hunter gatherers.

So if gender is basically the personality traits that become associated with men vs women, it's because sexual selection has largely selected for different traits in men vs women. I.E. what women typically looked for in a mate differs from what men looked for.

Even most trans people generally fall into these gender roles, they just try to adopt the roles of the sex they wish they were.

Is it even a scientific certainty that the human brain has made any evolutionary jumps since we reached our current anatomically modern condition?

I would think not, the one hand not enough time has passed. And on the other hand civilization disrupts the patterns of sexual selection.

If that’s the case, in an evolutionary sense, discussion about what Homo sapiens got up to in 200,000 years or more before Mesopotamia would be irrelevant. Therefore when I hear people talking about our hunter-gatherer days as if they represent our biological core (and I’m not saying you) when defining things like gender roles and identity I tend to think they’re just making **** up.

I'm not following you tbh

We were hunter gatherers for the vast majority of our time on this planet. Supposedly ~10,000 years ago we broke from that. Which is the blink of an eye in evolutionary time. That's precisely why the basic structure of hunter gatherer societies tells us so much about our behavior today.

When I hear the term hunter gatherer I imagine anatomically modern humans living in such a social structure. I don’t think the term is often used to describe our pre-human ancestors (although it may be an apt descriptor of how they lived). If we’re talking about our pre-human ancestral social structures that needs to be clarified and if we’re talking about homo sapien social structures it’s not relevant from a biological standpoint unless the brain evolved during that time span.

Ya'll do realize jwb is herding you to this discussion about trans people not being real right? That left turn to gender he took when ya'll were still talking about race was pretty awkward.

I actually didn't bring it up, Batty. I responded to something elph said about gender cause the race argument was pretty much done.

And I don't say trans people aren't real.

So you're saying that traditional gender roles were constructed by societal norms? A social construct, if you will?

I thought the whole village helped the mother raise children in Hunter gatherer tribes rather than the modern two parent model.

Yeah I guess it's basically a social construct but unlike race it serves a basic purpose and arose based on pragmatic biological constraints.

The idea of gender is basically just an aggregate of personality traits associated with the two sexes. Sex isn't a social construct and the reason those traits have become associated with a given sex is largely explained by the divergent strategies females and males employ to attract a mate.

generally speaking the women would take on that part of the work where men were more likely to hunt or do other dangerous work like that

The nuclear family is a modern adaptation of the same basic division of labor.

Wouldn't they would shift over thousands of years as society changes toward something more egalitarian and technologically advanced?

I mean they're obviously adaptable when you get into specifics.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the perception that women are more nurturing or men are more adventurous. These are traits that clearly were selected for and they reflect a lot of modern gender realities as well. So I don't think they are going anywhere anytime soon.

This is what the apes said to each other before this supposed hunter gatherer social influence entered the picture.

Millions of years ago? Sure

The thing is that like I said we aren't playing by the same rules in civilized society but for that to be reflected in our actual evolution, that would have to be true for much longer than just 10,000 years.

But I think in many ways natural selection has been overridden by technology in the case of humans.

If modern behaviour thwarts traditional gender roles, how would that be different from the behaviour in the past that supported those roles in terms of being a part of our "actual evolution"?

I gotta be honest the whole 70+ genders thing seems like a bit much to me.

I think we should limit it to 5 genders. You got your m, f, mtf, ftm, and then you got what I call your "wildcards."

I can't speak for trans people, but it always has seemed wrong to me to label mtf and ftm as separate genders. Trans people undergo a transition with the purpose of being acknowledged in every way as the gender they identify with. Wouldn't calling them 'trans men', for instance, not get in the way of that acknowledgement, as if they're not 'real' men? Why not just call them men?

Apart from that, I think I agree with you, so I'd say 3 genders. But I consider it a subtle and complicated problem, and I haven't come to a definitive conclusion at all

that's fair enough

To me there are really just 2, I was being generous with 5.

Even if you want to say you don't identify with any gender... That's not really a new gender.

Funny, you never asked me

for what, specifically?

What about hermaphrodites?

How is waking up one day feeling like a man and the next feeling like a woman(for those that experience it) different than waking up in a ****ty mood or amazingly happy? And why do we need to recognize this feeling as something special and separate from other human emotions?

We don't gotta do ****.