>>13722684>>13722653I'm the anon you are talking about. I know exactly what they mean by social construct, and I have already addressed the point here
>>13722668>>13722573>>13718000>>13717871You seem to think that I'm some misinformed retard, but I know plenty about this subject, because I'm literally a grad student studying mathematical biology, and I'm very familiar with the concept of a "social construct". This isn't like some advanced concept, and I have read both analytic and continental philosophy, and I literally own the book that introduced the concept of a "social construct" (pic related). If you read my earlier posts, I think its pretty clear that I have a good general understanding of this topic, probably better than you. For instance, a lot of people probably don't realize that the debate about genetics determinism recapitulates the nature vs nurture debate of the 20th century and the nativism vs empiricism debates in cognitive science, which themselves recapitulate the empiricist vs rationalist debates of the 17th century.
SJWs are the ones who don't understand definitions and what people mean when they say things like gender and race are related to genetics. Obviously these concepts are sociological in nature, and the definitions are to some extent arbitrary. That is accurate, but again all concepts are arbitrary, but in science, what we are concerned about is whether the concept is useful to understanding empirical phenomenon. In that respect, the concept of race is just as robust and valid as other taxonomical categories like cultivar, subspecies, phylum, strain, genus, etc. I don't understand why it is so hard for leftists and continental philosophy fanboys to understand the difference between claiming that something is a social construct, and claiming that it has no relation whatsoever with empirical reality. Race is a social construct, but racial categories are closely (but not perfectly) related with genetic and evolutionary concepts.
