Race/ethnicity

>race/ethnicity
>sex/gender

why do people insist on these distinctions without a difference?
why do people think they're based on science?

hmm I wonder why...

They are different concepts, that's why. Or at least they came to be references to concepts that differ.

different how?

Sex is your genes.
Gender are the social roles we expect of the sexes. For example... did you know all the first computer scientists were female? Computer used to be a term for a job, mostly done b y females. And using all those early computers with punch cards and such was considered a secretarial job.

As for ethnicity... that applies to your cultural beliefs. There isn't any real scientific definition for race other than skin color.

>inb4 /pol/

>computer science is a gender
>ethnicity is a belief
you can't make this shit up

Computer science is not a gender you retard.

The idea of it being an acceptable carrier for either males or females is a gender issue. Do you think it's acceptable for men to be nurses?

As for ethnicity, that's centered around what you do culturally: what holidays you cerebrate, etc.

That's the best I can do at explaining it. If you can't understand it you either being willfully ignorant or you can't be helped.

>The idea of it being an acceptable carrier for either males or females is a gender issue. Do you think it's acceptable for men to be nurses?
you are conflating gender roles with gender
>As for ethnicity, that's centered around what you do culturally: what holidays you cerebrate, etc.
this is so obviously false
an indian child adopted from infancy and raised in denmark is not ethnically danish
"ethnically danish" is precisely how you distinguish other people raised in denmark from someone like that who is only culturally danish

what you're saying 100% illustrates the fact that gender=sex and ethnicity=race

Let me redpill you.

Sex = gender
Gender is just the kid-safe word of saying sex. When you were a kid you weren't asked to tick your sex, you were asked to tick your gender.

But race is not equal ethnicity. Race can be defined genetically through some traits we think are significant enough to differentiate. For example, anyone can notice there is a huge difference between black skin and white skin, so we make the distinction.

Ethnicity has more to do with cultures. There are blacks in africa and blacks in south america, north america, etc. If you are a north american born black then you are not ethnically "black" (if we define black to be the source of blackness, which is Africa) but if you are african then you are ethnically black.

Similarly, americans are not ethnically white, they are american white. But we can definitely say they are ethnically american white. But not ethnically american because ethnic americans are the indians.

Similarly, north american blacks are indeed ethnic american blacks, just not ethnic blacks.

north american blacks are their own group imo, 25% white on average
there is no such group in west africa

often you can tell american blacks look a little different

E.g. if a 2year old screams in the train station, you're less upset with it than if a 30yo person screams.
If no asian person is around, you might use a words like "chink" more freely than if there were two 60yo Chinese women in front of you in the bus.
Point being different people occupy different positions for who they are.

If you woke up tomorrow 100% believing your sex is male and everybody would too and would treat you like a man (including social attitudes like expecting you to not ask for the way and judging you negatively for being "girly"), i.e. if for all intents and purposes you'd be a man to everyone, then your gender would be male. It's about your role.
Although as long as everybody would accept roles being tied to sex, gender would overlap with sex.

Race and ethnicity are tied too. But e.g. the fact that native Americans are not good at building off alcohol in their body, or that Chinese are not good at building off milk, you'd say that this is due to their race. Ethnicity is more used when speaking about culture. The people who speak Italian belong to some circle, and it's not the race that determines it.

But in both cases the terms are not clear cut.

And before people correct me, yes there are liberal rebrandings of those terms

>If you woke up tomorrow 100% believing your sex is male
Switch this to female in case you are already a man. you get the point tho

>>race/ethnicity
>>sex/gender
>why do people insist on these distinctions without a difference?

Are you literally saying that because gays have rewritten the meaning of some of these words as a contrivance of a temporary excuse for their actions you are completely convinced that there is a difference?

No real justifiable scientific reason has been able to explain gayness and instead they jump from lillypad to lillypad of temporary credibility.

Lets sum this up:
Straight = Scientific justification
Gayness = No scientific justification

And your still worried about the meaning of a few words? Surely strategies matter more...

>When you were a kid you weren't asked to tick your sex, you were asked to tick your gender.
but there's a similar thing with race and ethnicity: sometimes forms ask you to tick your ethnicity, sometimes race, and the options are the same each time ("caucasian, black, asian" etc)
>If you are a north american born black then you are not ethnically "black"
yes you are, it's just that we can differentiate further groups under the label "black" (west african black, american black, etc.) which are still biological
so the difference between race and ethnicity is just that ethnicity also includes these sub-racial distinctions?

>if for all intents and purposes you'd be a man to everyone, then your gender would be male
no, everyone would treat you as if your gender was male, but your gender wouldn't necessarily be male
there's a difference between what gender people think you are and what gender you are
gender =! perceived gender
gender =! gender role
you are actually using the liberal rebranding of that term
>The people who speak Italian belong to some circle, and it's not the race that determines it.
but it's obviously not an ethnic circle either, it's a linguistic or maybe cultural circle
someone who joins the italian-speaking circle does not become ethnically italian
and somebody of italian ancestry who grows up in a different culture not speaking a word of italian is still ethnically italian

>Are you literally saying that because gays have rewritten the meaning of some of these words as a contrivance of a temporary excuse for their actions you are completely convinced that there is a difference?
i'm saying there is no difference, race/ethnicity and sex/gender are not real distinctions

It was
>sex=gender
then
>sex/gender=what sex you want to be
finally
>sex/gender=???

you're most likely right

>i'm saying there is no difference
You need to be clearer on what your saying you dumb frog.

>race/ethnicity and sex/gender are not real distinctions

Race is determined by your genes.
Sex is determined by your genes.

If you want to say that there is no similarity between people of the same race, that is another argument and one that will fail as literally the whole of genetics will fight you.

What the trend in people saying nowadays is:
>Race is determined by you choice
>Sex is determined by your choice

But its not. Its determined by genes. Why would people deny their genes?

Ideology.

Ideology = Bias.

Remember, you are always smart enough to fool yourself.

They're not actually "determined" by their genes. They're determined by a human-imposed classification of genetic patterns. As far as "nature" is concerned, the difference between cousins and between totally different "races" is purely quantitative. But by introducing concepts like race, we draw a line to claim that there is a qualitative difference. It's like trying to define what a "big" number is. You can say "a big number is one greater than 1000" but that's arbitrary, it does not in any way logically follow from the nature of numbers, the way defining a number as "positive" or "even" does. Similarly, race is defined for convenience, not because we found that there's a certain % of genetic difference where things suddenly change.

>anti-realism because no precise boundary
you're probably also one of those people who think mountains depend on human classification because they slope up gradually from the surrounding landscape so they have vague edges
but that problem exists for literally every object
zoom in on your finger enough and there is no sharp line at which it ends and the air around it begins
objects have real boundaries, but the scale at which the boundary exists is the one appropriate to the object
>It's like trying to define what a "big" number is.
it's a number that is of great magnitude
if it didn't have a definition, there would be no such thing as a big number, but there is such a thing, ergo bigness has a definition in the case of number
your argument would also deny the existence of heaps, forests, beards, etc. because there is no definition of those things in terms of an exact (natural) number of constituent objects
>the difference between cousins and between totally different "races" is purely quantitative. But by introducing concepts like race, we draw a line to claim that there is a qualitative difference.
if in applying the concept we claim there is a qualitative difference, and there isn't, then we are wrong to apply the concept, since the claim we make in applying it is false
you claim there is no qualitative difference (it's "purely quantitative"), hence you claim the concept of race doesn't apply
hence you deny the existence of race

when will STEMfags stop trying to do philosophy?
they always just get stuck in retarded reductionism and relativism the moment they start

>>sex/gender
There is just male and female. All other modern shit is bullshit