Lol at If I shoot you here its murder but if I shoot you there its not, not being a social construct.

Lucky are you not aware of what a neologism is and how language evolves thru common usage?


That if i merely say the process of us chatting via text on a forum is called 'fligging' ('XYZ') and enough people adopt that term and start using it, it will become defined in dictionaries and accepted as part of the english language.

That is exactly how language (including english) forms and evolves, with fluidity at its core, thus its adaptableness.

At no point was society gifted a big book of complete English. It has always had fluidity and evolved.

It might surprise you to learn that this debate has existed for thousands of years.

Yes but I don't see what that has to do with the post you're quoting or anything I've said.

the issue is people usually address someone, in casual speech before asking for their pronouns or if they wish to be congratulated on Mothers Day.

I mean, saying 'Happy Birthing Person day' to a transman, who had just given birth on that day (on Mothers day) would seem very appropriate to me on Mothers day as that use of 'Mother', as someone else pointed out is less attached to the gender of the person and is more attached to recognition of the person giving birth, imo.

That is why, I say with no insincerity, it is confusing because my first impulse would be to say something to the new 'Parent' (transman) on that day. You seem to disagree and seemingly would not think it appropriate to say anything on that day (Mothers day as he gives birth), but you caveat it with 'you would ask' or I should and could.


And sure we can always all ask, and that answer may vary from person to person, which again speaks to why you need to stop being so dismissive that this is all so easy, when NO ONE, including you, a very liberal professor has no clue really, until you ask and get an individualized response.

That by default makes it quite difficult as it requires we rethink how we have used language since our species evolved language as humans are prone to group and not individualized salutations and ways of addressing one another. We tend to do that without thinking about it.

No it hasnt.

This is an argument where you are simply calling black white.

hahaha, shall i go back to other threads and quote all the times you call out for me to stop tone policing you? You want to ignore the very thing that sets many people off (feeling belittle, mocked, and told they are uneducated) because you work in one of the most liberal/left environments in the world (Canadian university) where even you are unsure of how to address these topics ('ask them') while at the same time you want to others to 'get over' being mocked for not being up to speed.


You may think it trivial but it is one of the key factors of the culture wars and the growing divide between those who are more 'woke' (not intended negatively) and those who are not.

they constantly mention this 'scolding' and people like you laugh them, hand wave it away, continue to scold, and then act like you are not part of the problem, when they become defensive and polarized.


I don't expect for one minute for you to take any of this to heart as I have said prior, those on the far left LIVE for the fight and not the reconciliation and many do not see it. You are likely in the latter group. You simply do not comprehend how mocking and scolding people for things 'they should NOT know' ('you need to ask them for clarity') would not make 'others' embrace the things you want them to and in fact tends to drive them further away.

Educate me then as I legit do not understand this point you are seeking to parse.


I assume a Social Construct, is an agreement within society to accept something as a norm and commonality for all (mostly all), or a new default position.

Thus the acceptance of dark skinned people as 'black and a race', is only something that happens within the Social Construct of people accepting it as true and then proceeding as if true. It is possible some dissent and rightly so that 'race' is not a thing but that dissenting view does not accept broader society from accepting the terms within our Social Construct and those dissenters have no power to stop it because of societies understood Social construct. That is accept and move forward as if true and it becomes true.

Same for new words and evolving words imo. If at the same time 'cisgender' was created and accepted, I had instead pushed forward the word 'Nisgender' and my word was never adapted by society and cisgender was, first by society, at large adopting it, then by it becoming defined, while my word was not accepted, how is that evolution of the new word 'cisgender' not a 'construct' of our Social construct and agreement as to how language evolves?

I mean, I can continue to use my word 'nisgender' but I would be considered wrong. Society has agreed and moved on. It is accepted. Thus is the Social Construct and how it works.

No? Explain?

Further then lets go down this rabbit hole.

Hypothetical:

- all the people of the country or substantial enough of them decide their country no longer exists or should exist. They are unwilling to defend it.

Does it cease then to exist?

A tangent experiment would be Canada having Quebec and Alberta and NewFoundland all agreeing to cede and doing so (all 3 have threatened btw) and the country then breaking up and ceasing to exist.

How do you argue that the Country was not a Social Construct in those instances since it only exists by virtue of the individuals who make up the nation (majority) agreeing it does?

Its not just that, obviously if you stand over there in country Y but walk ten feet into country X and I can use violence to end your life and no one has a problem is a social construct.

However if I shoot you whilst still stood in arbitrary spot country Y its murder etc.

So the "reality" of the border that defines a country cant exist without social construction.

The only actual reality is one person shooting another in one position or another.

I'm sorry this is all just so ridiculously contrived. You are talking about a hypothetical situation where you don't know what someones pronouns are, don't know whether they go by "mother" or "father" but it magically is the precise day they gave birth and you need an objective answer immediately? Why must we endlessly invent these bizarre fringe case linguistic rabbit holes?

The general heuristic is that trans men should be referred to and celebrated according to their male identity. They will likely refer to themselves as a father and celebrate on fathers day. That should be enough to generally answer your question. But humans are varied and I'm sure exceptions exist. Regardless, "happy birthday person day" isn't a societal thing, and it makes sense that it wouldn't be this because "mother" is already far beyond "birthing person" when you consider surrogacy, adoption, lesbian parents, etc. Your suggestion seems just completely obviously bad.

Surely you get that the choice of tone I use when arguing with you on an internet forum is different than the tone I might use in other real world contexts......right? Like do you really think when a student asks me a question in university I'm going to choose a tone of derision for their idiocy? Heck, this forum is basically one of the few places one can let off steam and give those snarky replies you have to hold in check in almost every context. So no, I find your tone policing attempts utterly void.

Getting hysterical over imagined situations where he might be mildly inconvenienced is sort of Cupe’s whole brand.

I'm conceding that the term social construction can have an application outside the confines of cognitive psychology. I feel it's usage outside of it is trite and of little importance-- the sort of idea that maybe I cared about when I was 12, but not something that needs to come up in adult discourse.

Did you by chance eat a lot of paint chips as a kid?

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihl...truct_supp.htm

This is a pretty good overview that provides plenty of further reading opportunities.

This was interesting

Did you chance grow up to vote for an orange man?

Lol if true.

I think of it as a "good enough" term. There are certainly a range of social behaviors (like wearing dresses or whatever) that are more associated with people of one sex than the other and aren't at all determined by sex seem good enough to be referred to as socially constructed. If you want to get all picky over the technical meaning of that term then like sure, but I don't really care. We should be accepting of trans people regardless or whether you want to call gender traits as "socially constructed" or not.

No it isn't.

Obviously it is. We can use it for animals but it isn't used for people.

Funny!!!

I did! Twice!!

#Trump2024

(My final post in P&S.)

Have fun, everybody!

That gender can be considered a social construct and at the same time an individuals gender can be fluid.

Fluidity of gender is a personal thing
Gender as a social construct isnt

I think your misinterpreting what ppl mean when they say gender is fluid.

Regardless of this but of what were chatting about, i wanna pick up on you saying social constructs arent real. Social constructs are definitely real
Why do you think they arent?

**** off with this nonsense. Seriously.

First of all, despite protestations to the contrary, I suspect that most people who do this intend it with ill intent. But regardless, how it's received is more important, and I find it hard to believe that you're stupid enough to not realize that many, many people would find this dehumanizing.

I was treating them as psychological constructs not things out in the world.... If I'm understanding you correctly.