Damn girl, you're looking amazing! I'm digging the aesthetic overall... I'm particularly impressed by the 8" stilettos in the opening scene - I never brave higher than 6-7" stilettos myself, coz I'm unco. How do you find them to walk in?
You get more attractive every video. I'm bi and I was attracted to you before I found out you were a woman, but I'm even more attracted to you now tbh............ fix my car mommy........
The airbag bit reminded me of a conversation I had yesterday: My mother: My computer is in the shop for repairs. Me: Oh, what happened? My mother: It wouldn't turn on. My brother: She spilled diet coke on it.
A lot of people take "it's a social construct" to mean "it's not real" or "it's not important" when the real point of identifying something as a social construct is "we can change it if we want"
Saying it's not important is obviously an subjective statement but I think it could be argued that social constructs are not _real_ in a sense that they are not intrinsic to the universe and thus made up. However almost all social constructs have real consequences for real people which is why people argue about their definitions.
Some people like to lay claim to an objectivist personal philosophy. That way they don't have to bear the burden of proof as the object can be regarded as self-explanatory. The proof it quite literally in the pudding. This might work well for simple homeostatic property clusters, but when complexity sets in, well, as ms. Thorn herself told us: ". ..politics an metaphysics will come at you at the same time...". Few people appear to be able to notice when they cross the line of complexity where simple objectivist philosophy stops working as intended and instead assume self-explanatory objects where complex homeostatic property clusters muddy the waters...
Ill often say "money is a social construct" which some people interpret to mean that it doesn't have a big affect on people's lives which like??? That's literally not what I said???
Most people don't go to college and don't understand what you mean by "social construct." It's incumbent on you to speak to be understood, not incumbent on the workers to get a degree they can't afford in order to understand you.
On the other hand it costs £0 for the listener to say "what's social construct mean?" and for the speaker to explain. You're allowed to ask questions in real conversations. In any case that's assuming a mechanic wouldn't understand certain ideas simply because they went to trade school instead of uni (what a telling assumption; a lot of minorities know very well what social constructs are because they suffer as a result of them).
Hang on, is Dr. Doofenshmirtz ability to tell the difference between a platypus and Perry the Platypus depending entirely on whether he's wearing his 1950's fedora, an illustration of the social construct at work? [Edit: It's a 1940's fedora]
Seems like more of a personal construct of Doofenshmirtz to me, but maybe it's one among the LOVEMUFFIN community. Either way, a worthy illustration of the concept and some of its consequences.
@@alicesmith5361 Ah good point! So would a better example be the way everyone in the PnF universe outside of the evil scientist community, identify anyone who wears a white labcoat as a pharmacist? Is this differing view between the evil scientists and the rest of the tri-state area an example of how communities can disagree?
That's just what my college experience was like, but in reverse. (Captain of the Quidditch Team, but haven't seen Jojo, or Evangelion or Dragonball...)
I'm trans. What I've learned is there there is a radical and pernicious underbelly of trans people who actively hate females. If we fail to acknowledge this in our own community we are screwed.
I really want to pump billions of dollars in a movie franchise, but first I need to know: how many daft metaphors for real world tragedies your novel has?
"its a lot of pressure being cool.... I imagine.." The sheer amount of subtle facial expression, body language and tone of voice made this very simple joke so excellently carried out that i had a laughing fit and replayed that part three times. This is just awesome, amazing work. Such insanely high quality.
I’m not sure if this was intentional but I liked how Abigail mentioned the philosopher she cited only had one name because she’s Icelandic. It was a nice subtle way to mention another kind of social construct and how pervasive social constructs are.
Fun fact: In 2019 Iceland changed the law, no longer restricting names by gender and adding the surname suffix option -bur (meaning child of) for non-binary people
Right, its going to work with 7 billion people around. Also the hits I got on google search was about some anime character, so it would have helped to give her surname.
@@hungrygrimalkin5610 Good thing 7 billion people don't live in Iceland. Maybe figure out how to properly use keywords before you go belittling someone's culture lol
@@hungrygrimalkin5610 yeah she absolutely has a surname which is her fathers name Swedish, Norwegian and Danish also historically used patronymical surnames(sorry for the spelling) which is why many surnames have the ending -son which has lost it specificity so to sum up often surnames lose the reasons behind having surnames
We need a social-construct-fixing-inator, that would definitely and ultimately decide whether or not something is a social construct and fix people's views on it
No, western society has always existed the way it currently does and was always amazing and never had moral issues and that is why conservatives have always made sense! Duh! (/S for the slow kids)
At risk of committing the cardinal sin of being sincere on the internet, I think this is my favourite of all your videos. Tight as hell. Accessible. Funny. A great educational resource but also quietly personal and political.
I say it bluntly: I thought God wants people to help the world, which of course would include the Internet, which includes UA-cam. And UA-cam is a Mess. So i gathered Links that directly lead to N-dity and Racism and P0rn and heavy Insults. Or combinations of all of those. In the hope that people can use them to use the reportbutton of youtube on them, thus helping UA-cam become less hate-filled and sex-filled. If you want those links, just give me a Word. I can easily provide them.
to quote the funniest post from tumblr "i dont know why people get mad when you say gender is a social construct. everything is a social construct. go ask a frog what day of the week it is. he doesnt know."
There is no point in arguing something is a social construct if EVERYTHING is a social construct. The argument is used to break down definitions and confuse people so the speaker can backdoor their real argument.
@@diydylana3151 but a day is a measurement of distance and velocity. I guess the idea of a “work day” would be a social construct but not the day itself.
I just felt a moment of intense joy at the part about the Earth -1 experience of platypuses. Thank you. Also, the rest of the video is great too. Abigail your work is stellar. You are a treasure of a creator and a magnificent human being! Thank you for existing.
I think many people get angry when you say "this thing is a social construct" because they understand it to mean "it is imaginary", thus "it doesn't exist".
Or it means that it can change, and thus people who have lived their life in a certain way because of what they are feel attacked because "they can change" who they are when in all of their life they know they can't in fact change who they are.
It also says something about how they perceive the world too. The only reason why they believe it is because it is true for them. If it can be changed, then it turns out that they can also be wrong.
@Humanism Is A Cult well, again, sex is a social construct, too. That got mentioned in the video. Sure, there are things you can measure about it (just like Schmite) but the parts of society that change how we interact with that make sex a social construct, too. You can totally acknowledge something as a social construct and also say that it’s a good one and should stick around because A, B, C. You could also acknowledge something is a social construct, and say it’s bad and that we should change it because of X, Y, Z. People get wrapped up in the idea that saying something is a social construct is a value judgement on that thing, which isn’t necessarily true. Some people might use it that way, but it’s a weird way to use it, because there are plenty of things that are (MASSIVE scare quotes) “imaginary” that are great and useful, like stories.
I was about to just write "your mom's a social construct" before even watching the video, you know, to just be juvenile, but then I watched the first minute...
The most popular take on the question "Why do we, as society, treat men and women the way we treat them?" that I have have heard is "well, back in the days, the roles were divided, because men are stronger and women are weaker so..." Hearing this response proposes new questions - "How much research is done on, how did our early society work ?" "Is it really efficient to divide people based on their supposed capability of doing hard work, based on their sex?" and the most important one "Why do we still follow the pattern that was, supposedly, developed in our early day society right now? As Abigail have said, why do we care? Being a woman is something that is inevitably tied to being a heterosexual and cisgender. So many aspects of so called "girlhood" are tied to being attracted to a man. Dates, boy talk, watching romance, kids, marriage, thirsting over a crush and so on. Having attraction to men means wanting to be perceived as attractive by men. And what are the standards to attract a guy, as a cishet girl? Well, I wouldn't know that, because I am a lesbian. I am missing out on many big parts of "girlhood" by not being straight. I do not fell connected to feminity in a way that another (cishet) teen would or, honestly, in any way that I could describe, besides generally being okay with being called a girl. Does it make me less of a woman or maybe the concept is just outdated ? I fell like the video answered that question pretty well. Thank you Abigail for such a good and digestible video :)
Wow... Someone's sexuality has 0 bearing on what their sex/gender is. I say sex/gender because they have literally always been synonymous. Being a woman has literally nothing to do with being heterosexual. Nor does being a man. That statement made absolutely no sense. You claim to be a lesbian...so...lesbians are not women now because they arent hetero? 😂 make that make sense. Societal expectations that a girl will be hetero has 0 bearing on the fact that a girl who is not hetero is in fact still a girl. The most butch lesbian you will ever see, chin hairs and all is in fact still a woman. The most effeminate man is in fact...still a man. No matter how many hormones they have taken, no matter how many surgeries they have had. You can take a Toyota and replace all the badges, engine and bodywork, replace it with Ferrari stuff and not a single person would ever actually consider it a Ferrari.
In many struggling parts of the world, Women still do the majority of the work. This is particularly common in places that are dependent on foreign aid. We really act like the majority of ancient history is covered in awful violence< and people struggled to survive. Most of the time, we were all just living. Communities are protectors. A wife isn't safe just because of her Husband. She is safe because of her family, friends, and neighbours.
No one forces women to be straight, stop acting like a victim . It's men who are forced more , and gays were more targeted than lesbians in abrahmic cultures . Men for no reason are told to protect women first of all , we need to stop that first .
I think that's because the majority of women are cis and heterosexual. But femininity is not exclusive to them or necessarily to any gender. It is, however, more common with women. With that said, GENDER ROLES are a social construct, not gender itself(or sex, since there's a distinction now). Being a woman isn't measured by how feminine you are(in general). But your sex largely dictates your position in society and how you navigate it. Sex determines your biological aspects. Both men and women are unique and have their own strengths and weaknesses, society needs both to function, or rather it needs individuals with distinctive characteristics. Either way, gender is more or less considered a social construct in liberal parts of America only. The rest of the world is still working on dismantling gender roles. Transgender people are interesting individuals indeed. And anyway, people can live however they feel is right for them, we don't need to go full radical on general truths. I agree with most of what you've written, but there are also more things to consider there. With that out of the way, I'm really interested in your experience. I'm an asexual woman and I've also felt quite alienated from female experience. I think I'm quite feminine in nature, but not like how heterosexual women are.
@andjelabozic2317 Um...did you watch the video? We make up the categories, friend, we name them and will them into existence for our own purpose. "General truth" is not widely accepted as a thing, because it means we accept one version of reality as objective. With the example of "Schmight" given in the video, sure, we can observe distinctions that exist, but they are only correlated with the social expectations because we decided it to be so. "Sex" or "gender" similarly mean something because we assign that meaning to them. Yes, don't think I didn't catch that subtle dig of "oh I guess they're separate now." Everything we know about the world is a construct, we made up languages to communicate, we created categories to compartmentalize our world into something digestible. The way we have categorized them isn't objectively correct, and changes over time. The way sex and gender are interpreted varies across time and culture. Are other cultures wrong for categorizing things differently than us? No. Because truth is not objective, or observed to have a "general" meaning. Your experience dictates your truth
I studied cultural anthropology and this is pretty much all we talked about, like why is men wearing make-up in the U.S. seen as transgressive, while Wodaabe Fule men in West Africa use facepaint to court their partners? A professor explained social constructionism to us by asking where is gender in nail polish? A pigment suspended in a solvent that reflects a certain wavelength of light?
If anyone wants another fun example, google "vegetables are a social construct". The gist is that botanically speaking, "vegetables" don't exist. Asparagus is the stalk of a plant, lettuce are the leaves of a plant, etc. We created the vague category of "vegetables" to mean "parts of edible plants that are savory and not herbs". Which is a useful category when you are trying to cook, but it's all made up! And it extends to fruit! Carrots are sweeter than lemons, but only one is a fruit. Bananas are technically berries, but you won't ever find one in a mixed berry pie. Apples are genetically more similar to roses, but we still group them with peaches. Other people have said this previously, but the point of a social construct is not that it doesn't matter, it's "what are we using it for? why?" AND, importantly: since we decided what traits are important in which circumstances; we can change them.
I don't disagree with your general idea that we created the category of vegetables. Carrots are sweeter than lemons, but are not called a fruit because there is a definition of what fruit is (reproductive body bearing seeds). That said, we consider cucumbers, tomatoes, and zucchini to be vegetables even though they are really fruit. Apples are genetically similar to roses, but peaches are in the same family as both roses and apples (they all belong to the Rosaceae family). I think botanists are less likely to think of lettuce as just a vegetable, or a tomato, but the general public is just trying to get through life knowing what they can eat. Kind of like how not that long ago, whales and turtles and pretty much anything eaten from the sea was just called "'fish".
"Vegetables" is a construct created for political reasons just as "fruit", "meat", and "dairy" are. In England of old, the flesh of animals, that is "meat", was considered a luxury and taxed one way, while the output of animals such as milk and eggs were taxed a different way. "Fruit" which was seen as primarily an imported extravagance was taxed a whole other way, and "vegetables", the edible stuff that was not an animal product and was grown in England was not taxed. This is why cucumbers, tomatoes, and so forth which are scientifically speaking "fruit" and why mushrooms which aren't even technically plants are considered "vegetables". It's the tax bracket they were assigned to. It's also why eggs are "dairy".
Hold up. How you gonna say it's a social construct. That's like saying, dogs are a social construct. Carrots are a social construct. Humans are a social construct. Literally any word, and word at all, used in the human language, to define something, you can say is a social construct under that logic. Stop saying "social construct" to make yourself seem all smart and edgy. It's literally just a "word" you're talking about. A word that categorizes things, according to a definition. "Vegetables" is a word, or category if you want to really go deep. Not a "social construct".
@@jackmace6531 Well. I mean. If you want to use "social category" instead of "social construct" on a video about "social constructs"...go for it? But "words" don't categorize things, people choose words to categorize an experience or set of commonalities. And those definitions that describe a category...are constructed...socially. Lastly, not sure what circles you hang out in where the phrase "social construct" is particularly smart or "edgy", but as long as you're having fun.
As a Geordie, congratulations on doing an ACTUALLY pretty flawless accent. Can confirm we regularly drink nineteen pints and crash into a wall. Also this is a fascinating explanation on social constructs! Thank you for doing this, you’ve left me with a lot to think about!
Love the phrasing of it specifically - like am I getting tattoos and piercings, am I having a nose job, or am I having my gender trans-ed? Who's to say? 🤣🤣🤣
Since the post-credit says "Philosophy time baby" while on the Earth -1 filter, I imagine Philosophy Tube exists too, but covers philosophers that were vibing from the beginning.
It is also important to recognize social constructs because they are etymologically expansive. The word mother is not only limited to physically giving birth, but our understanding of the monogamic family understands that the female caretaker in that unit is a mother. That includes stepmothers, surrogate mothers, adopting mothers; They're all mothers because the social construct of mother has expanded to consider it non-deviant and non-threatening to the society's structure
yup, and the fact that there's no movement pushing back against "woke" definitions of motherhood that define mothers as people outside the person who gave birth to someone, shows that anti-trans bigots are completely aware of how these social constructs work. They just tactically pretend not to know now they work when attacking trans people, because that's the group of people they were told by their betters to kick down on.
Trans woman: boring, controversial, s c a r y. Personal body modification hobbyist: cool, crafty, speaks to your depth of knowledge and general handiness.
Only slightly related: I know this has been said before, but how in the HELL is Abigail so fucking gorgeous!? She looks so much cooler when she’s presenting as a woman and I love it. As a lesbian girl I’m jealous, turned on, and thinking ✨*le philosophy*✨. 10/10 best channel on UA-cam
If I had watched this video when it first came out, I would've come out so much sooner. I wish I had seen this back then, but I'll take what I've got now! I already felt this way prior about socially constructed ideals, but I didn't quite have the grasp I needed to really wrap my head around it. I certainly didn't grasp that social constructs were so ingrained in our world that we interact with them without even realizing it. Thank you for deconstructing this in such a thought-provoking way!
I keep coming back to this video again and again. You explain yourself in such a complex, and yet understandable way, which makes heavy topics like this easier to grasp for us who have just dipped our toes in philosophy! I look forward to and appreciate every single video you make, but this one will always be my favourite! Thank you for the lessons
@@MaviRB well it's partially true. Icelanders generally don't have family names. Instead their name is followed by a patronym, so if your name is Daði and your father's name is Pétur, your name is Daði Pétursson, though you may also have a middle name, like Freyr, making your full name Daði Freyr Pétursson.
It must be awful being so clever. It's difficult explaining to people with no understanding of the scientific method that 'exists' as idea and 'exists in experience' reality are not equal.
Well, something being a social construct means it didn't always exist until the construct was created. Which means it is essentially non-existent. In the same way money is a social construct and its existence depends on our collective belief in its value and the usage of it as a system of barter, any and all social constructed have to be created and their existence is dependent on the collective belief in and acceptance of the construct. It doesn't just mean they don't exist as intrinsic priorities, it also means they're incredibly fluid, in the same way there are different types of money with differing values and are based on different systems with different inspirations. The euro is literally a 20th century invention, it didn't always exist, but it was CONSTRUCTED as a means to unify Europe and use one currency that was valid in any of the countries that are part of the EU(ALSO a 20th century invention).
@@lukelyon1781 yeah ... and mothers existed before we came up with the construct .... the word mother is a descriptive word. I dont see how it can be compared with "coolness" or race or any "social consturct"
@@haverjamarosi680 no, giving birth and having babies existed before we came up with the descriptive role of motherhood and tribal people would collectively raise children, they weren't assigned and didn't belong to one set of parents. The role of motherhood and its ties to femininity were only invented within the last couple millennia or so. Meaning very recently in human history.
@@haverjamarosi680 If a woman adopts a child, she's legally considered the "mother" despite not biologically giving birth the child. The legal system allows her to make decisions about the child's life because of this "mother" status and the state can take the child away if she doesn't do it the proper way, regardless of any genetic connection. There's also social ideas about how a mother should act that people support or criticize - almost none related to actual biology or pregnancy. The child's strongest emotions and attitudes might be about their mother's connection with them. So yes there is biological motherhood. But there's also this social idea of motherhood that has so much more meaning to us and is even legally enforced.
There was an episode where the crew lost their memories, and Worf assumed he must be the captain because he's the only one with a big shiny metal sash thing. The others are just like "Shit, seems legit. Congrats, captain"
Lets be real if we got our memories erased and people didnt know what black people are people would freak out and wonder what the hell a black skinned human was.
@@dragongamer4753 same with white or asian people... Like of course people would be curious, surprised and a bit terrified about finding out something they didn't know existed. Like if we were to find blue skinned people we would probably freak out a bit too because it's something we didn't know existed. So what point where you trying to make?
That part!!! Reminded me of how much I hate Freud even tho all my classmates from psychology love him (and some people chose the course because of him), I love philosophy so much that if the one I do didn't exist I would choose that or sociology which I also love
@@turmalokadosguaxininsretar9926 like, recently your classmates took this class because of Freud? I'm not trying to be mean but that sounds like you went to school in the 1970s. The scientific consensus has been "Freud was a quack" for a while. His theories are mostly untestable. And the ones that were he didn't even bother to test. I really hope you went to college in the 70s.
Going to tag on here and note that this is very likely a reference to a recent twitter kerfuffle where Florida Republican Anthony Sabatini whined on twitter that Socrates would be "cancelled" today, of course completely oblivious to the fact that Socrates was executed for his beliefs.
I'm in university for sociology and I denied the link to philosophy the whole time. But actually, I see the link now. Of course, social constructs are a very important part of sociology, too. You explained it very well.
Social behavior is itself a biological phenomenon. "Social constructs" are emergent properties of biological mechanisms. Sex and gender are both culturally defined, but both are ultimately biological phenomenon stemming from the evolution of anisogamous reproduction and the resulting sexual conflict between males and females. Everything from differential anatomy and physiology, to gender roles, are simply elements of that trade-off operating and individual and group levels. Culture, itself, is a biological property (i.e., a mechanism of non-genetic inheritance of a behavioral phenotype). People can't really accurately talk about social constructs without a firm understanding of evolutionary biology and animal behavior.
@cjohnson3836 why are there different ideas of gender roles across cultures? Our current idea of gender roles has nothing to do with biology. Social constructs are emergent properties of societies. Social constructs being a result of our biology doesn't even make sense. You should put the biology book to the side and look into literature about sociology and anthropology. Might help with the stuff you're talking about.
@@cjohnson3836Absolute nonsense, you're essentially saying that nature is all-powerful and nurture is irrelevant, but that's clearly not the case. If you take identical twins and raise each twin in a very different environment then they'll likely turn out very different, despite their nature being identical. Nature is obviously a factor of how certain cultural practices arise, nobody denies that, but to claim that it all boils down to nature & biology is ridiculous.
@@cjohnson3836 Creating a definition of culture that uses biological terms doesn't make it a biological property. Categorising everything as a "biological phenomenon" only works if you expand the definition (or, reconstruct the social category) of "biology" so far that it becomes useless. You can do it if you want, but then you'll need to create a new word for biologists to use to talk about the things that they study because, by your logic, accountants, art historians, and engineers are all biologists now too.
@@snapgabWell they'd have different characters since they're different individuals with different experiences. Nowhere in that experiment was it mentioned either of them transitioned. And aren't trans people trans precisely because their brains are similar with those of the gender they identify with?
I feel like the controversial thing with social constructs is that some people think that if something is a social construct that means that it’s essentially meaningless or it doesn’t “really”exist.
Grasping what a social construct means takes some time. They are not meaningless nor inconsequential, but they are very much dismantleable and changeable
It's either so far in the background that people get stupidly, even murderously defensive about any challengers, or social constructs are a completely obvious foreground thing that it seems mere fleeting affectation, or silly personal style stuff. Thinking through the connection to actual everyday stuff is hard.
Well that is kind of the issue here. If an idea is or concept is a social construct then the argument by those in favor of changing a definition is often that the definition of a word is arbitrary - and that because of its how arbitrary a category is... We can just change the definition - if people are excluded by it and that causes harm to them. Yet the problem here is that human beings do not randomly form sounds and create definitions to math those sounds - words are not there in order to entertain us. Words are created with the intent to be able to convey a piece of an information, an idea or concept. As such, the definition of a word should not be criticized on some conspiratorial notion of - "Who is benefitting and who is loosing from this" - but rather from the standpoint its utility. We can argue and even agree then certain words may or may not have been intentionally created or the definition of a preexisting word was changed for political reasons. However criticism based on an alleged conspiracy is pointless and for two reasons. First of, it is incredibly difficult to prove a conspiracy, if there is one then the evidence is not exactly going to be strewn around out in the open. Second and this is my main grievance with the - "its a social construct so therefore we could hypothetically change the definition and include anything and everything" - is that, what exactly is a word, why is a word and what happens to the utility of that particular word were the definition to be changed? For example if we take the word "bowl" as in the bowl that one may suitably use to eat soup, stew, sallad and/or muesli out of. Then we take the work "plate" as in the plate from which one would eat, say pasta, a sandwich and/or Schnitzel with fries from. Now I say to you, we are going to stop using bowl and only use plate. You agree to this. I get myself a drink while you sit at the dinner table reading a newspaper. I am standing standing at the cupboard and about to get myself a glass. You are hungry and intend to eat some muesli. To be practical and efficient this requires the use of what was we previous agreed to call a bowl. Now you say "would you kindly get me a plate". What do I get? A plate or a plate? By changing the definition of plate to include a bowl. I have drastically reduced if not eliminated the utility of the two word plate. It is similar to the example of a doctor being required in a medical emergency. It is good to be aware of a doctor is someone with the title of doctor, however in common parlance that is not the definition that is being used - and it does not have to be. The reason for this is context - if a guy is passed out on the floor and I am shouting in a panicked voice. "Oi somebody get me a bloody doctor!" Then I am probably not in dire need of a doctor in philosophy to solve a dispute that me and my friend is having in a discussion about taxes. It is also important and essential to asked - if a proposal was made to the definition of a word - especially when an amendment to a law which is currently in affect is proposed, as to why that proposal is being made. An interesting example of the an attempt to change the definition of a social construct - this is the ATF changed its interpretation of a "bump-stock", from it not converting a "firearm" into a "machine gun" to it now doing so. This is important because being in "possession," of a "machine gun" without the required paperwork is that it is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Fortunately, agencies like the ATF do not have the legal authority to decide what exactly a law means and how it ought to be interpreted. This lies with the courts.
Yeah exactly. Like how race is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's not real. It is very real, as is racism. It just has absolutely nothing to do with genetics or science (unlike ethncitiy which is a different thing that IS based on genetics, but there's no ethncitiy called "white people" and there's no ethncitiy called "black people", "white people" is a race, but it's made up of hundreds or thousands of different genetically distinct ethnicities who bear a superficial resemblance to each other in their appearance, and same thing with "black people"). Race is a social construct because it's made up by societies, and so depending on the country the person you're asking comes from, they'll define say for example "white people" as something different to how you define it from your country. 100 years ago, Irish and Italian immigrants in the US were considered not-white. But it became politically convinient to start considering them as "white" so they could he added to the big voting bloc in opposition to voters who are people of colour. Nothing about their genetics changed. They just used to be considered not-white, and now they are considered white. But yeah that doesn't mean that racism against these immigrants didn't exist. Of course it did. That's why it was such a huge deal that JFK became president. It was as big a deal as Obama becoming president, because people just never believed an Irish man would ever be voted in as president, just like the next generation didn't believe a black man could be voted in as president, because of the huge amount of racism against both Irish and black people in the US And that's another point that proves that race is a social construct, Obama himself. Obama is half black, half white. But nobody ever referred to him as the first mixed-race president. He was never considered even remotely white, even though that makes up half of what he is. "Black people" is something that has nothing to do with genetic reality. The "one-drop rule" is proof of this. Have even 1% of "black person" in your dna, and you're counted as 100% black. You have "one drop" of "black blood" and that's enough to socially construct your identity as "black" That's why it genuinely is a big deal that Obama won. Because he was considered to be the first black president by everyone, on both sides of the aisle, and not the first mixed race president. And the racism against him was very very real, unfortunately. Even racism that somehow made even less sense than considering him black, instead many seemed to regard him as Arabian, even though he's not got any Arab "blood" in him at all. It was entirely based on his superficial physical appearance because being mixed race gave him the same sort of skin tone as what Arabs have, and the fact his middle and last name sounded middle Eastern. But yeah. It's good to know whether things are social constructs or not. But a thing being a social construct does _NOT_ mean it's not real.
@Are You Going To Do The 'Ora Ora' Thing? Taking up Foucault's dispositif stuff, or Lacan's stuff on the Social Imaginary, even the things we don't put into words, and even what we can imagine, is all determined by, and determining of, social construction; by what others have said or built or how we have been heard, and such. Which isn't to say everything's just a delusion, or that no reality exists outside our collective consciousness. It's just to say our relation to reality is more complicated than the popular modern cartesianism left to us from the British Empire days.
Me, who relied on Butler's Gender trouble for his BA thesis a lot: "Out of my way kids, looks like I, for once in my life, did the reading for my class"
@@heb1999 I get disliking lettuce's comment. But you could take two seconds to think before insulting someone. South specifically went out of their way to point out how this can be useful to criticize "both sides". That's a common trait of centrists, pointing out how "both sides" have issues. This isn't proof that South is a centrist, but it's obviously a rather centrist thing to say. Also it doesn't really matter if South is a centrist.
@@Woodsaras "Projecting what? Biological reality?" Projecting the need to be defined by biology. Why? And as per the video, why not height instead? Or some other random characteristic? Your genetic sex is a small part of what makes you who you are, you are not your sex any more than you are your brain or your legs or your hair. And if you are allowed to change your hair, why is changing your gender somehow so wrong? This is the whole point. What purpose does having *that* social rule serve, and to whom? Why do we care so much about it? And don't say "oh, but the toilets and changing rooms!" and "oh, but the sports contests!" cos those things can be fixed in a jiffy if we have the will. But you wouldn't really want that would you? Or the implication that - with these problems fixed - gender no longer needs to be nailed down.
@@Jane-oz7pp As a layman I think I would dare go as far as to say that "Music" in and of itself is a social construct, and everything music-related has therefore to be built on top of it
@@EvlNinjadude Music is anything that is made with one or more musical instrument. Now what is a musical instrument, you may ask? Simple, it's any instrument used to make music
I mean in part it is an acceptance that the rigidity by which we hold these things is socially assigned not some inherent function of nature and reality. That's the part I think really fucks with people, it's why the existence of gender is "basic biology" rather than social assignment based around primary and secondary sexual characteristics
I get mad because a lot of "leftists" do take it to mean that and then argue we should get rid of gender. Gender is a real experience, the specific categories are social constructs but we need ways to express these human feelings. It's all cis bros and enbies that don't understand valuing your gender identity, like a bi person saying everyone should be bi
@@accomplishedpage644 I value your experience of gender, and all other people who feel it's relevant. To me, though, gender has never been a thing I could understand, it doesn't feel real to me. I've only ever experienced gender as something happening to me, it's never been more than abstract. I conform to the expectations put upon my biological sex, but it feels hollow. I'm an atheist at church.
Like many, during the pandemic I started to struggle, which led to my suspicions I had ADHD, with which I was later diagnosed, putting much of my childhood and family into fitting context. My wife's struggles led to an autism diagnosis with similar Revelations. And realizing how many of my friends and family seem to fit the bill, it had me asking questions, seeing the world through a neurodiverse lens. Which inevitably makes me ask, why? Why describe the world in these terms, grouping these clusters of symptoms and supposed causes together and giving them names and privileges and stigmas? Of course there are practical reasons: allocating resources, finding community and understanding, etc, at the cost of fighting for resources, creating outgroups etc. But really has me thinking, what's this all for? How real are these groups, diagnosis', etc. And does it matter how "real" they are? What do we do with all this?
@@AliciaGonzalez-pk3mw He wasn't diagnosed with ADHD "based solely on being restless during pandemic." That's your trivialisation of his actual experience which you know nothing about.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a mate. We were discussing the differences between useful distinctions and fundamentally different according to the current understanding of the laws of the universe. Just because a distinction can be made doesn't mean its a useful one. I'm currently studying biology and the whole "kingdoms of life" WAS useful but things have been added, tweaked, rearranged and subtracted so it more accurately represents what's observed. Like in your platypus scenario, that illustrates that having the label of "mammal" to mean having x,y,z, properties is mostly useful. But in taxonomy, for the most part if a distinction is no longer useful it's ditched. "A Chef will say that a tomato is a vegetable. A botanist will say it is a fruit. A philosopher will discuss weather a Bloody Mary is soup" - I forget who said this
The problems we see today are equivalent to botanists wanting tomatos legally classified as fruit and for chefs to be cancelled if they try to say otherwise.
I suppose I am happy to say all definitions are socially constructed but uncomfortable with the idea that by deconstructing all concepts we can arrive at something that is other than a social construct. I have not come to a final position on this and maybe never will, but I am considering the utility of certain constructs which is perhaps a more conservative point of view. I also agree with Kant in that I do not think we can know things in themselves so there is a world of representation we are unable to escape, but the awareness of this condition must inform our use of representation. For me that leads to a dislike of relativism and consideration of pragmatic considerations. A serious issue is how language contaminates all such considerations. I like the idea presented in this video of homeostatic clumps because these reveal anomalies in classification however the existence of the platypus does not mean we hare forced to change the definition of mammal because we have the option of making it an exception or a qualified or even ambiguous member of the family. It rather depends on how frequently it matters in a discussion of mammals, perhaps in the same way as most people still use Newtonian Physics but accept that Relativity and Quantum physics are required for certain matters.
@@SmileyEmoji42Meanwhile the sane people look on like “wtf why does any of this matter do whatever you want just don’t kill all the tomatos we kinda like those”
@@SmileyEmoji42"problems we see today"? You do know that there is a legal precedent set in America for tomatos being vegetables. And it was decided in 1893. So problems like these aren't just a modern thing. They've always existed and it's only in modern times that the ability to discuss them has become widely available. With this availability we can talk about more important things than tomatos
I’ve been talking a bit to my friends about how much I love these philosophy UA-cam videos and I’ve realised they probably think I’m just having a big brain existential crisis, but in reality I’m having a big brain existential while watching a pretty car lady with crazy shoes and feeling like a simp
You get to do the learning of metaphysics you may have not been able to do before and you get to look at the pretty lady with the big boots. Who is loosing here?
The only problem with this explanation is not that there is anything wrong with it ( it was quite brilliant ) its that it informs us as to the nuanced definition of the concept in a proper way, but it isnt being used in its proper way in the sociopolitical discourse. So, we have intrinsic properties and other properties such as relational. Properly, man or woman is a relational property, but when they designed, say, girls restrooms at a school in the 50s, girl was not being used as a relational property, to those who designed it, girl was intrinsic. They meant that restroom for young human female, and they used that term to convey that. So, when someone in a modern time say that young, or even adult human males should be allowed to use the girl's restroom. Trying to use the argument that something is a social construct is an end run around the actual reason for why a space was designed which on its own is an intellectually dishonest word game. No, people arent getting angry about it simply to justify hating trans people as suggested in the video. All of this comes with a very large bag of baggage, and while the philosophy of what a social construct is, is useful, its important to remember that those who designed 'girl's rooms' or the 'boy scouts' were not philosophers. They may even have used the word erroneously, but, the purpose for their design is still what it was.
The two of us are in agreeance with one another. Likewise, I also took pleasure from the particular segment of Abigail's production wherein disquisition ensued in relation to the concepts which have been created and accepted by an agglomeration of people subsisting together simultaneously in relatively organized groups arranged upon shared locality and curtural heritage.
I love how as the conversation gets more real and personal, the more she moves into the car. Looking at social constructs, but ultimately demonstrating that we live within them.
@@SwiftAmhe the shift from an observer or dissector of a social construct, and an active participant in the construct. Maybe? Idk, I’m only three minutes into the vid so far.
Your videos exhibit exceptional production value, capturing attention through their visual and auditory elements. Moreover, the depth and thought-provoking nature of your content engage viewers on a profound level, encouraging contemplation and philosophical inquiry. The manner in which you articulate your ideas, coupled with your extensive vocabulary, establishes you as an exceedingly proficient educator. Indeed, your intellectual prowess and eloquence are commendable. (IBCGPT) In my own words... Your smart words challenge my dyslexic ADHD mind to think deeper. LOL!
I think one of my favorite personal examples of explaining the constructs of race and nationality is a colleague of mine from grad school. For context we were in school in Germany... her parents are native Japenese, and our classmates [people from all over the world] would ask, "so where are you from?" And this was a very difficult question for her to answer: her PARENTS are Japanese, so she inherited their Asian physical characteristics. However, she was BORN in Argentina, first learned Spanish, and spent early childhood there. But her ID and passport was Canadian, because she had lived in Toronto most of her life. She now has the added aspect of her current physical address is German because she acquired her marriage visa with her German husband. So it always comes down with, what do you mean you ask "where are you from?", because her constructed identity can be broken down so many different ways.
I love this example and it proposes further metaphysical debate of what properties makes a person from somewhere. I would love to hear her interpetation of that metaphysical identity.
Yeah, this happens a lot with Latin American people too, due to colonization and immigrants. The question "what is your race" isn't common at all here, it's so strange to see how common it is in the US or even Europe.
@@jwildan I'd love that. I was born and raised as a minority in my home country (by race I look the same), but now living in LDN, after 6 years, when someone asks me where I am from, I actually get angry. I wasn't pre-covid, but now I get angry. It was very surprising to me. Then I realized, over the past year I did make the decision to build and live the rest of my life here, I also went through lockdown as someone who worked in the entertainment/service industry, so I feel like I am from here. I never thought about this until it first happened to me, just a few days ago. The feeling of going through something extraordinarily hard together, also forms its own connection and circle of belonging. And as multicultural and colourful as we are in London, not having a harsh accent for a very long time now (I've met people who talk with very distinguished accent even after 10+ years, in which case ofc you'd ask where they are from!), I get offended when someone assumes I am not from London. :)
@@emptyness7 yeah, at school I didn’t know what to put except for “Hispanic/Latino” and …maybe “White”? It’s just stupid to have kids be this conscious about their physical appearance and how this affects other people’s perceptions of them.
As soon as I heard it my face went so Pikachu- it's thinly veiled but very direct at the same time I loved it. Had me figuratively rolling for quite a while
Honestly, this feels like a perfect "intro to philosophy tube" video. Not because it's simple or taking some "baby steps", but because it is extremely accessible and walks you very well into the subject with great pacing, and without even being that long.
Hard disagree. This is easily one of her least thorough or consistent video. Perhaps easy to digest but really under-par compared to her other content.
Thank you SO much for this!! I’ve been spending the last few years trying to educate myself on all manner of issues, my opinions on which were formed by people in no way qualified to do so, and this video is super helpful!! It’s so nice to watch something that really makes one think, but it also helps me a lot because I’ve found that as I learn more myself, people challenge me and try to tear down my new understanding of things, and very often I have no response. But the cleverly worded analogies in this video are going to be great tools for me!! 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🥰🥰🥰
13:25: Bio major here! In principle, for modern biology, the feature which determines whether an animal is a mammal or not is whether it's descended from the most recent common ancestor of all mammals, as defined by picking a few mammals from distant branches of the family tree. The scientific community did have to decide to include a monotreme among those defining mammals, but it's still a bit messy...and, in my opinion, there's a better biology analogy. Species seem like pretty firm categories, aside from the odd hybrid or asexually-reproducing organism. (Which aren't so odd, but never mind that.) But looking at populations over time, things get messier. There had to be-for instance-a first mammal (the aforementioned MRCA). By definition, this first mammal would be a different species (and genus, family, order, etc) than its parents...despite the fact that the mammal MRCA has more in common with its parents than its parents do with most other members of their species. This is most obvious in hominid evolution. We have a lot of fossils of primitive humans, from _Australopithecus_ to anatomically modern _H. sapiens_ and everything in between. Anthropologists draw lines between different genera and species...even though there are plenty of gray areas. The first _H. erectus,_ by definition, is closer to an australopithecine than to most _H. erectus_ specimens, which is why in practice, there _is_ no first _H. erectus_ specimen. Scientists disagree on where that line should be drawn. I think species are an almost perfect metaphor for social constructs. They obviously reflect part of reality; cats are different from dogs, mammals are different from reptiles, _H. erectus_ are different from _Australopithecus._ The categories are, in some instances, helpful...but even a cursory glance makes it clear that they're artificial, and that drawing a hard line between closely-related specimens can have adverse effects. (Look at the creationists who see this disagreement as "evidence" against evolution, for instance.) It only has one weakness-if your audience isn't very familiar with biology, you need to spend a couple paragraphs explaining your analogy for it to make sense. A couple of caveats: 1. This isn't always how biologists did taxonomy; Linnaeus was categorizing mammals before Charles Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye, he couldn't have imagined the mechanisms behind the trends he noticed. Cladistic taxonomy is a relatively recent trend. 2. In practice, biologists tend to look at physical traits first to figure out what category an animal should fall into. This is a bit more sophisticated than petting them to see what kind of integument they have (ie, if they're fuzzy), but on a philosophical level it's closer to that than it is to deriving its classification from its place in the Tree of Life. Without sequencing its DNA or something along those lines, physical characteristics are what we use to estimate where a given species should go; you could argue that the only thing that's changed is our definition of what traits a mammals has. 3. Platypi _are_ adorable.
@@saricella I'd argue that valuing your sanity and studying biology are incompatible in general, but I am a theoretical computer scientist, so who am I to judge? XD BTW, what is the problem with plant cladistics? I know bacteria tend to mess stuff up with plasmids, but my biology in general is very rusty.
@Drewpeacock_2117 wow guys youve done it youve stopped trans you dont have to act like this anymore you can delete your accounts and stop commenting forever youve won
That early bit about wiping people's memories and seeing if they form the same social constructs reminded me of John Rawls' veil of ignorance from the last episode
Well noticed! ^^ And I feel like one of the main criticisms of the veil of ignorance presented in that video, can more or less be reformulated as "If you construct a solution to society in ignorance of its social constructs, then you're not really making it for that society". If you construct rules for an ideal society that does not account for things like racism, then applying those rules to our society may not work as intended.
Since lots of people have been asking for the music, I found them and here it is: Opening = 0:01 - Vidas Anónimas by Broex Part Two = 9:16 - Bad Habits by Jules Gaia Part Three = 15:25 - Eat My Freedom and Die by pär Credits = 21:24 - I'm Not That Girl by The Devil's Sway feat. Bri Oglu
The way she talks about the foundation of gay rights sitting on the social construct of “born this way” has me thinking how some trans people of an older generation had to build their constructs around “diagnosable transsexualism” just to get hormones and surgeries. But a lot of younger trans people are kinda leaning into the personal freedom approach, and I can see how someone who’s transition was contingent on a diagnosis from a doctor would feel threatened by a shift in the view
@@lunchtimeiscrunchtime I want to understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t understand why this channel/video would insult you personally? I don’t think Abigail is trying to dismiss anyones experience, least of all yours as a fellow trans person. I feel like both ideas can coexist since everyone is different. There are those for whom gender dysphoria is so severe that medical intervention is needed, but there are also those whose dysphoria is not as severe (or maybe they have none at all) yet still wish to transition medically or socially. Just because in the past, those with severe dysphoria (born in the ‘wrong’ body argument) were the only ones talked about/getting treatment doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine the social constructs around gender In fact, I would argue that addressing the social perception of gender is key for cis people and trans people alike to understand huge aspects of the trans experience
@@lunchtimeiscrunchtime I would also challenge the point you make about biological manhood/womanhood. Because in the video, she admits that “nobody’s denying [inherent physical characteristics]” merely questioning why these physical characteristics matter so much socially. But she acknowledges that they do matter in our version of earth! In saying this, she is not denying “biological womanhood and it’s challenges” but questioning why those challenges exist at all. The answer it seems is because this is how we’ve been taught, and how we continue to teach our children to treat others based solely on physical characteristics tied to “biological sex”
@@lunchtimeiscrunchtime I took her response more to mean “that’s a very interesting thought! Let’s explore the philosophy behind these feelings” rather than a smug “here’s why you’re wrong” because I don’t think we actually settled on an “answer” since it’s all so subjective. The mother feels very passionately about her motherhood (completely expected!) but we’re examining which aspects of motherhood are attributed by the culture (ie Mother’s Day cards) and which aren’t. Also thinking about it more, motherhood is a really good example when thinking of how this relates to gender identity and trans rights. The woman from the start of the video has tied her motherhood to biological aspects (carrying and birthing a child) yet a parent who adopts doesn’t have this physical experience. In essence, an adoptive parent is the very embodiment of socially constructed parenthood. Because they have chosen to adopt a child, we have conferred the social role of “parent” onto this person, despite never having had the physical or biological experience (carrying and birthing) I may have gone on a slight tangent but I find these kinds of questions very interesting!
@dj Kplus How do they matter socially, though? It's not a real time strategy game where you compare "average stats" of men/women. They matter individually for the same reasons every physical trait matters, but there is a lot of overlap in physical power and strenght on men/women (and we can only measure them in terms of our culture, which further changes the results), so using sex/gender as a prescription for strength when other indicators like muscle mass and height are readily available isn't even practical.
This is an amazing way to learn philosophy. I love how its very abstract in that its describing something much more general. The way you describe it feels like a math lecture where first the abstract notion is presented and then examples are provided explaining how these abstract notions are used in application. Your explanations felt like a lecture in the mathematics department; I really enjoyed it.
Note for English speaking folks: There's an updated translation of The Second Sex from 2010 that fundamentally changes the meaning of the book (better representing de Beauvoir's meaning). If you're still using the old version, a lot of the stuff in this video is missing.
21:05 "When you leave the classroom, politics and metaphysics will come at you at the same time. We're not just doing philosophy for the hell of it. We are tinkering with the engine of the world here." - Abigail Thorn This is inspiring. It makes me want to be in the company of Hamilton & Madison rather than Washington & Lincoln.
You're fighting about who gets to be called a mother when you should be fighting about why people who give birth to a child are treated so differently from those who haven't.
This is as clear as it gets. Loved the video. It literally changed my mind on how I perceived gender identity before. I mean even before watching this, I was thinking about this seriously but this literally made the final push. Thanks for such simple and educational video.
Really?! This was clear?! Sorry this was bs. Basic biology will tell you what the underlying properties of a woman and a man is. These are pretty simple facts and no amount of hormones, makeup and surgery changes that.
As a baseball fan who has had that fandom mocked a half dozen times today in things that didn't have anything at all to do with baseball but were just people scoring some cheap laughs, I am just fucking done with humanity for a while.
I brought my friend to a baseball game once forgetting he has a serious peanut allergy. I would say I won’t make that mistake again, but it looks like I won’t have the chance
I know your channel❤ I think ppl get so angry about these things bc everyone wants to feel important and to feel like whatever they’ve done with their lives was and is important. When the labels that support their ideas of themselves are felt to be under attack, it feels like a personal attack that undermines and diminishes the foundation their identity is built on.
Hmm but women still create life right? You can’t change that. A man or anyone coming along to say how that is just a social construct would not be true. You can’t argue against nature.
"Muscle car is a social construct" Seeing Abby in the Mustang made me realize that many car enthusiast are unknowingly constantly engaged in metaphysical debate. Ask 3 car enthusiasts if a Mustang is a muscle car and you'll get 4 different answers.
I think that's because you'd get 4 different Mustangs, from a wimpy 4 cylinder automatic base model to a BOSS 666 whatever. Is one of those a muscle car, and not the other? Are they even the same car? Metaphysics!
Mustangs are objectively a muscle car in my opinion, and the reason a 4 cylinder one isn't, js because it simply doesn't have muscle. 57 years of it being a muscle car doesn't get eliminated because of a few embarrassing models
Friends had a long debate, one said a rally car was not a race car because race cars compete on race tracks and rally cars compete on rally stages. Therefore categorizing a rally car as a kind of race car (such as stock car, open wheeler, drag car, etc) was incorrect.
"I had 19 pints and crashed into a wall" is forever immortalised in my brain as the funniest one liner ever inserted into a UA-cam video without warning.
So shall we all pretend this is a girl and everything is ok ? I am transracial and identify as BLACK WOMAN. Pls take this into account when replying back !
@@earzo7 The second day? Ha! Talk to me on the 25th day. Seriously, before the plague it was the best excuse out there to stay home and do nothing for a whole month.
VROOM VROOM!
Damn girl, you're looking amazing! I'm digging the aesthetic overall... I'm particularly impressed by the 8" stilettos in the opening scene - I never brave higher than 6-7" stilettos myself, coz I'm unco. How do you find them to walk in?
You get more attractive every video. I'm bi and I was attracted to you before I found out you were a woman, but I'm even more attracted to you now tbh............ fix my car mommy........
Cars are social constructs.
ALL MY LIFE, I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR A GOOD TIME, A GOOD TIME
So true queen
The airbag bit reminded me of a conversation I had yesterday:
My mother: My computer is in the shop for repairs.
Me: Oh, what happened?
My mother: It wouldn't turn on.
My brother: She spilled diet coke on it.
I couldn't help but notice, this Classic Vintage Fancy Car doesn't seem to have airbags, or headrests. Seems like a recipe for the Gwen Stacy Special.
Haha my bf breaks his phones all the time but it's seldom his fault. It's the floor's, the shitty making, water/humidity, other people's
@@ahmedamine24 Perfect 10/10
A lot of people take "it's a social construct" to mean "it's not real" or "it's not important" when the real point of identifying something as a social construct is "we can change it if we want"
Saying it's not important is obviously an subjective statement but I think it could be argued that social constructs are not _real_ in a sense that they are not intrinsic to the universe and thus made up. However almost all social constructs have real consequences for real people which is why people argue about their definitions.
And a lot of people _pretend_ to take it that way because they really, _really_ don't want us to change it.
Thats just not true
Some people like to lay claim to an objectivist personal philosophy. That way they don't have to bear the burden of proof as the object can be regarded as self-explanatory. The proof it quite literally in the pudding. This might work well for simple homeostatic property clusters, but when complexity sets in, well, as ms. Thorn herself told us: ". ..politics an metaphysics will come at you at the same time...". Few people appear to be able to notice when they cross the line of complexity where simple objectivist philosophy stops working as intended and instead assume self-explanatory objects where complex homeostatic property clusters muddy the waters...
Yeah, money and religion are also social constructs. Plenty of people seem to think that they're important.
Ill often say "money is a social construct" which some people interpret to mean that it doesn't have a big affect on people's lives which like??? That's literally not what I said???
I bet the dollar bill comes out of the pocket soon after in an attempt to prove you wrong.
I’m not saying you’re saying this, but I have heard people take that stance
I see this a lot in arguments about crypto currency lol
Most people don't go to college and don't understand what you mean by "social construct." It's incumbent on you to speak to be understood, not incumbent on the workers to get a degree they can't afford in order to understand you.
On the other hand it costs £0 for the listener to say "what's social construct mean?" and for the speaker to explain. You're allowed to ask questions in real conversations.
In any case that's assuming a mechanic wouldn't understand certain ideas simply because they went to trade school instead of uni (what a telling assumption; a lot of minorities know very well what social constructs are because they suffer as a result of them).
Every high school should have an umpire yelling at every single kid that they're cool, in that exact way
Heck yea!
What happens if you respond "not cool, man!"?
If everyone is cool..... nobody is!
that would cause coolness inflation
@@aaa99876 abolish coolness the anti-cool peoples revolution will triumph
Hang on, is Dr. Doofenshmirtz ability to tell the difference between a platypus and Perry the Platypus depending entirely on whether he's wearing his 1950's fedora, an illustration of the social construct at work?
[Edit: It's a 1940's fedora]
Seems like more of a personal construct of Doofenshmirtz to me, but maybe it's one among the LOVEMUFFIN community. Either way, a worthy illustration of the concept and some of its consequences.
yes
Yes. Yes it is.
@@TwentySeventhLetter nice.
@@alicesmith5361 Ah good point! So would a better example be the way everyone in the PnF universe outside of the evil scientist community, identify anyone who wears a white labcoat as a pharmacist? Is this differing view between the evil scientists and the rest of the tri-state area an example of how communities can disagree?
"The Anime club thinks you're cool but the Quidditch team thinks you're not" I see what you did there...
That's just what my college experience was like, but in reverse. (Captain of the Quidditch Team, but haven't seen Jojo, or Evangelion or Dragonball...)
Strolled comments just to see if someone already said this.
I'm trans. What I've learned is there there is a radical and pernicious underbelly of trans people who actively hate females. If we fail to acknowledge this in our own community we are screwed.
@@ZackZick96 Sounding an awful lot like a 5th columnist there, Lux.
The way she looked in the mirror when she said that was just, ugh, my heart
“There’s no umpire at the school gates going ‘you’re cool!’”
No, but in my new and totally original YA novel there is.
Called a sorting hat
I really want to pump billions of dollars in a movie franchise, but first I need to know: how many daft metaphors for real world tragedies your novel has?
Market it as a Light Novel and the weebs will snatch it up.
Source: am weeb
@@marreco6347 exactly, important! Second question, whats its relationship with capitalist realism?
@@justcommenting4981 Yeah it picks if you’re cool, a nerd, chill, or evil.
"its a lot of pressure being cool....
I imagine.."
The sheer amount of subtle facial expression, body language and tone of voice made this very simple joke so excellently carried out that i had a laughing fit and replayed that part three times.
This is just awesome, amazing work. Such insanely high quality.
Im still wondering where i can sign up for the comittee that decides about coolness.
I’m not sure if this was intentional but I liked how Abigail mentioned the philosopher she cited only had one name because she’s Icelandic. It was a nice subtle way to mention another kind of social construct and how pervasive social constructs are.
Fun fact: In 2019 Iceland changed the law, no longer restricting names by gender and adding the surname suffix option -bur (meaning child of) for non-binary people
Right, its going to work with 7 billion people around. Also the hits I got on google search was about some anime character, so it would have helped to give her surname.
@@hungrygrimalkin5610 Good thing 7 billion people don't live in Iceland. Maybe figure out how to properly use keywords before you go belittling someone's culture lol
@@hungrygrimalkin5610 yeah she absolutely has a surname which is her fathers name Swedish, Norwegian and Danish also historically used patronymical surnames(sorry for the spelling) which is why many surnames have the ending -son which has lost it specificity so to sum up often surnames lose the reasons behind having surnames
On her book “Categories” the author’s name is just Ásta.
"It's a lot of pressure being cool..."
"I imagine." *we say in unison*
Great comic timing with that one.
Nah. Ignore the anime pfp, it is a lot of pressure. However I say "nah" because if you stop caring about being it, it makes you even cooler.
This comment will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Your memes will be adapted to service us 😁
"A social construct?"
= puts small hat on =
*"PERRY THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!?"*
LMAO
We need a social-construct-fixing-inator, that would definitely and ultimately decide whether or not something is a social construct and fix people's views on it
best doof philosophy will always be If-A-Tree-Fell-in-the-Forest-inator settling the argument by making things that fall make the noise of his name
@@g.j.9515 omg yes! what episode was that? i can’t remember lol
Should be the top comment lmaooo
a whole video to say "why do you care". 10/10
“Everybody did not like Socrates” really got me
@Deniz Metin T. well,( i think its a joke) he got on a trial
No, western society has always existed the way it currently does and was always amazing and never had moral issues and that is why conservatives have always made sense! Duh! (/S for the slow kids)
I love your frog profile picture
lol i went here to comment that
“fasten your seatbelts”
*snuggles deeper in their blanket*
Honestly, same...
Blankets are sleepbelts
@@frederf3227 Perfection.
At risk of committing the cardinal sin of being sincere on the internet, I think this is my favourite of all your videos. Tight as hell. Accessible. Funny. A great educational resource but also quietly personal and political.
You are cancelled, and your like count on this comment shall remain at 69. Good day sir.
Cancelled.
I feel like I’m reading one of those pithy reviews on the back of New York Times best seller. 🤙
It's a great video, but I miss the arson.
I say it bluntly:
I thought God wants people to help the world,
which of course would include the Internet,
which includes UA-cam.
And UA-cam is a Mess.
So i gathered Links that directly lead to
N-dity and Racism and P0rn and heavy Insults.
Or combinations of all of those.
In the hope that people can use them to use the reportbutton of youtube on them,
thus helping UA-cam become less hate-filled and sex-filled.
If you want those links, just give me a Word. I can easily provide them.
I cannot express how much joy the platypus title card brought me. Silly music and a little guy having a good time I’m-
Well,there certainly should be a platypus umpire. Society has been cheated.
That sounds like a Phineas and Ferb bit.
" *PERRY* THE PLATYPUS UMPIRE!?"
@@anone.mousse674 First thing I thought of :D I was grinning for like five minutes at the thought of Perry in an umpire outfit
A platypus umpire?
*puts top hat on*
PERRY THE PLATYPUS UMPIRE?!
@@whoisheiforgothisname2103 OMG that's hilarious
I’m pretty sure there’s a platypus umpire. Taxonomists take these things very seriously.
to quote the funniest post from tumblr "i dont know why people get mad when you say gender is a social construct. everything is a social construct. go ask a frog what day of the week it is. he doesnt know."
@@hughjanus7176 silence, supercringe
There is no point in arguing something is a social construct if EVERYTHING is a social construct. The argument is used to break down definitions and confuse people so the speaker can backdoor their real argument.
But a day is a unit of measurement, kinda doesn’t work.
Just because a frog doesn't know what day of the week it is, doesn't mean gender/sex doesn't exist.
@@diydylana3151 but a day is a measurement of distance and velocity. I guess the idea of a “work day” would be a social construct but not the day itself.
The way she explains things is so kind and digestible. It puts me in the learning mood rather than trying to debate or argue.
Nice teacher vibes
That’s one way to out yourself
@@shawrty5952 she
@@adriahernandez2280 ah s u r e
@@shawrty5952 ?
I just felt a moment of intense joy at the part about the Earth -1 experience of platypuses. Thank you. Also, the rest of the video is great too. Abigail your work is stellar. You are a treasure of a creator and a magnificent human being! Thank you for existing.
First was the Anti-Fire Brigade, now we have the Social Construction Worker
Oh that's blessed
daaaaaaaayum
This needs more likes 😂
@@stellablake6200 aww, thanks. Philosophy Senpai noticing's satisfying enough for me ^^
Unite!
I think many people get angry when you say "this thing is a social construct" because they understand it to mean "it is imaginary", thus "it doesn't exist".
They also feel extremely defensive of the status quo you inherently challenge by saying that
Or it means that it can change, and thus people who have lived their life in a certain way because of what they are feel attacked because "they can change" who they are when in all of their life they know they can't in fact change who they are.
It also says something about how they perceive the world too. The only reason why they believe it is because it is true for them. If it can be changed, then it turns out that they can also be wrong.
@Humanism Is A Cult well, again, sex is a social construct, too. That got mentioned in the video. Sure, there are things you can measure about it (just like Schmite) but the parts of society that change how we interact with that make sex a social construct, too. You can totally acknowledge something as a social construct and also say that it’s a good one and should stick around because A, B, C. You could also acknowledge something is a social construct, and say it’s bad and that we should change it because of X, Y, Z. People get wrapped up in the idea that saying something is a social construct is a value judgement on that thing, which isn’t necessarily true. Some people might use it that way, but it’s a weird way to use it, because there are plenty of things that are (MASSIVE scare quotes) “imaginary” that are great and useful, like stories.
Or because the thing being talked about isn’t a social construct.
I was about to just write "your mom's a social construct" before even watching the video, you know, to just be juvenile, but then I watched the first minute...
she has me convinced. i guess your mom IS a social construct.
@@tesso.6193 She was a social construct LAST NIGHT!
Sorry, did I mention I'm juvenile?
@@mscottjohnson3424 Lol I love it!
@@tesso.6193 Butt what isnt then? can you name a thing that isnt a "social construct"?
@@haverjamarosi680 well I think we've established your mom is definitely a social construct
Edit: butts are also social constructs
The most popular take on the question "Why do we, as society, treat men and women the way we treat them?" that I have have heard is "well, back in the days, the roles were divided, because men are stronger and women are weaker so..."
Hearing this response proposes new questions - "How much research is done on, how did our early society work ?" "Is it really efficient to divide people based on their supposed capability of doing hard work, based on their sex?" and the most important one "Why do we still follow the pattern that was, supposedly, developed in our early day society right now?
As Abigail have said, why do we care?
Being a woman is something that is inevitably tied to being a heterosexual and cisgender.
So many aspects of so called "girlhood" are tied to being attracted to a man. Dates, boy talk, watching romance, kids, marriage, thirsting over a crush and so on. Having attraction to men means wanting to be perceived as attractive by men.
And what are the standards to attract a guy, as a cishet girl?
Well, I wouldn't know that, because I am a lesbian.
I am missing out on many big parts of "girlhood" by not being straight. I do not fell connected to feminity in a way that another (cishet) teen would or, honestly, in any way that I could describe, besides generally being okay with being called a girl.
Does it make me less of a woman or maybe the concept is just outdated ?
I fell like the video answered that question pretty well.
Thank you Abigail for such a good and digestible video :)
Wow...
Someone's sexuality has 0 bearing on what their sex/gender is.
I say sex/gender because they have literally always been synonymous.
Being a woman has literally nothing to do with being heterosexual. Nor does being a man. That statement made absolutely no sense. You claim to be a lesbian...so...lesbians are not women now because they arent hetero? 😂 make that make sense. Societal expectations that a girl will be hetero has 0 bearing on the fact that a girl who is not hetero is in fact still a girl.
The most butch lesbian you will ever see, chin hairs and all is in fact still a woman. The most effeminate man is in fact...still a man. No matter how many hormones they have taken, no matter how many surgeries they have had.
You can take a Toyota and replace all the badges, engine and bodywork, replace it with Ferrari stuff and not a single person would ever actually consider it a Ferrari.
In many struggling parts of the world, Women still do the majority of the work. This is particularly common in places that are dependent on foreign aid.
We really act like the majority of ancient history is covered in awful violence< and people struggled to survive. Most of the time, we were all just living. Communities are protectors. A wife isn't safe just because of her Husband. She is safe because of her family, friends, and neighbours.
No one forces women to be straight, stop acting like a victim .
It's men who are forced more , and gays were more targeted than lesbians in abrahmic cultures .
Men for no reason are told to protect women first of all , we need to stop that first .
I think that's because the majority of women are cis and heterosexual. But femininity is not exclusive to them or necessarily to any gender. It is, however, more common with women.
With that said, GENDER ROLES are a social construct, not gender itself(or sex, since there's a distinction now). Being a woman isn't measured by how feminine you are(in general). But your sex largely dictates your position in society and how you navigate it. Sex determines your biological aspects.
Both men and women are unique and have their own strengths and weaknesses, society needs both to function, or rather it needs individuals with distinctive characteristics.
Either way, gender is more or less considered a social construct in liberal parts of America only. The rest of the world is still working on dismantling gender roles.
Transgender people are interesting individuals indeed. And anyway, people can live however they feel is right for them, we don't need to go full radical on general truths.
I agree with most of what you've written, but there are also more things to consider there.
With that out of the way, I'm really interested in your experience. I'm an asexual woman and I've also felt quite alienated from female experience. I think I'm quite feminine in nature, but not like how heterosexual women are.
@andjelabozic2317 Um...did you watch the video? We make up the categories, friend, we name them and will them into existence for our own purpose. "General truth" is not widely accepted as a thing, because it means we accept one version of reality as objective. With the example of "Schmight" given in the video, sure, we can observe distinctions that exist, but they are only correlated with the social expectations because we decided it to be so. "Sex" or "gender" similarly mean something because we assign that meaning to them. Yes, don't think I didn't catch that subtle dig of "oh I guess they're separate now." Everything we know about the world is a construct, we made up languages to communicate, we created categories to compartmentalize our world into something digestible. The way we have categorized them isn't objectively correct, and changes over time. The way sex and gender are interpreted varies across time and culture. Are other cultures wrong for categorizing things differently than us? No. Because truth is not objective, or observed to have a "general" meaning. Your experience dictates your truth
I studied cultural anthropology and this is pretty much all we talked about, like why is men wearing make-up in the U.S. seen as transgressive, while Wodaabe Fule men in West Africa use facepaint to court their partners?
A professor explained social constructionism to us by asking where is gender in nail polish? A pigment suspended in a solvent that reflects a certain wavelength of light?
That's preposterous. It doesn't reflect a certain wavelength of light, it simply absorbs all others!
@@alanturing8382 what if it's iridescent?
@@alanturing8382 and what happens to the wavelength it doesn't absorb?
@@alanturing8382 if it doesn't reflect any light, how does the remaining light reach our eyes?
Yet, men don't polish their nails or use make-up. Curious huh?
I have a better question, where is gender in swimsuit?
If anyone wants another fun example, google "vegetables are a social construct". The gist is that botanically speaking, "vegetables" don't exist. Asparagus is the stalk of a plant, lettuce are the leaves of a plant, etc. We created the vague category of "vegetables" to mean "parts of edible plants that are savory and not herbs". Which is a useful category when you are trying to cook, but it's all made up!
And it extends to fruit! Carrots are sweeter than lemons, but only one is a fruit. Bananas are technically berries, but you won't ever find one in a mixed berry pie. Apples are genetically more similar to roses, but we still group them with peaches. Other people have said this previously, but the point of a social construct is not that it doesn't matter, it's "what are we using it for? why?" AND, importantly: since we decided what traits are important in which circumstances; we can change them.
I don't disagree with your general idea that we created the category of vegetables. Carrots are sweeter than lemons, but are not called a fruit because there is a definition of what fruit is (reproductive body bearing seeds). That said, we consider cucumbers, tomatoes, and zucchini to be vegetables even though they are really fruit. Apples are genetically similar to roses, but peaches are in the same family as both roses and apples (they all belong to the Rosaceae family).
I think botanists are less likely to think of lettuce as just a vegetable, or a tomato, but the general public is just trying to get through life knowing what they can eat.
Kind of like how not that long ago, whales and turtles and pretty much anything eaten from the sea was just called "'fish".
And my favourite one: mushrooms are considered vegetables but aren't even from plants; they are more closely related to animals than to plants.
"Vegetables" is a construct created for political reasons just as "fruit", "meat", and "dairy" are. In England of old, the flesh of animals, that is "meat", was considered a luxury and taxed one way, while the output of animals such as milk and eggs were taxed a different way. "Fruit" which was seen as primarily an imported extravagance was taxed a whole other way, and "vegetables", the edible stuff that was not an animal product and was grown in England was not taxed. This is why cucumbers, tomatoes, and so forth which are scientifically speaking "fruit" and why mushrooms which aren't even technically plants are considered "vegetables". It's the tax bracket they were assigned to. It's also why eggs are "dairy".
Hold up. How you gonna say it's a social construct. That's like saying, dogs are a social construct. Carrots are a social construct. Humans are a social construct. Literally any word, and word at all, used in the human language, to define something, you can say is a social construct under that logic. Stop saying "social construct" to make yourself seem all smart and edgy. It's literally just a "word" you're talking about. A word that categorizes things, according to a definition. "Vegetables" is a word, or category if you want to really go deep. Not a "social construct".
@@jackmace6531 Well. I mean. If you want to use "social category" instead of "social construct" on a video about "social constructs"...go for it? But "words" don't categorize things, people choose words to categorize an experience or set of commonalities. And those definitions that describe a category...are constructed...socially. Lastly, not sure what circles you hang out in where the phrase "social construct" is particularly smart or "edgy", but as long as you're having fun.
Books flight to Earth -1, joint in hand.
Why earth -1? We should go to earth -99 instead
Hell yeah
Yes as we should 😩💅🏻
I'm busy contemplating the horrific distopia of Earth 5, or 6, or 7...
Khadijaaaaa!!! My new fav youtuber
As a Geordie, congratulations on doing an ACTUALLY pretty flawless accent. Can confirm we regularly drink nineteen pints and crash into a wall.
Also this is a fascinating explanation on social constructs! Thank you for doing this, you’ve left me with a lot to think about!
iirc it’s actually the posh accent she’s putting on
I'm fairly sure she's from Newcastle.
Abby is from Newcastle..
big up newcastle
As an American, I didn’t enjoy the American accent she did for the baseball strike bit lol
But I love her, and this whole video
"I've just been doing a bit of body modification work."
More people should talk about this because this is so simple yet, so effective.
Your comment deserves all of the notes because seriously, Philo is a friggin genius for these jokes
Love the phrasing of it specifically - like am I getting tattoos and piercings, am I having a nose job, or am I having my gender trans-ed? Who's to say? 🤣🤣🤣
OH NO SHE'S GOT A WRIST ROCKET
This joke was top quality
@@mxanarchycake haha Agreed! Came to the comments just to love that joke. Top Tier!
I just hope they still have Philosophy Tube on Earth -1.
Since the post-credit says "Philosophy time baby" while on the Earth -1 filter, I imagine Philosophy Tube exists too, but covers philosophers that were vibing from the beginning.
Its just abigail smoking joints on camera :))
@@baciu14 I'd pay money for that
They do, but it's not particularly interesting.
@@baciu14 I invoke ye, birth of the reader ! Well, of the watcher, really. You're probably right though.
Abby: “imagine another earth called Earth 2”
Me, who has read way too many comics: “no problem”
crisis on infinite Earths
Someone write the Dark Multiverse Abi Who Laughs comic.
Honestly, Earth -1 getting high and watching platypus videos was slightly harder to picture, but probably only due to my jealousy.
Unrelated, but I adore your profile picture.
@@GothicRomantiSystem lol thanks. Who doesn’t have love in their heart for Buff Beaker?
It is also important to recognize social constructs because they are etymologically expansive. The word mother is not only limited to physically giving birth, but our understanding of the monogamic family understands that the female caretaker in that unit is a mother. That includes stepmothers, surrogate mothers, adopting mothers; They're all mothers because the social construct of mother has expanded to consider it non-deviant and non-threatening to the society's structure
yup, and the fact that there's no movement pushing back against "woke" definitions of motherhood that define mothers as people outside the person who gave birth to someone, shows that anti-trans bigots are completely aware of how these social constructs work. They just tactically pretend not to know now they work when attacking trans people, because that's the group of people they were told by their betters to kick down on.
Great example
"Everybody loves Socrates" should really be a sitcom.
Approximately the premise of The Good Place
Or BoJack horseman
One of the first rock bands in Greece was named "Socrates drank the conium"
...That's "Everybody Loves Socrates", Thursdays at 9 on SCTV
Socrates did not kill hemself
"I've just been doing some, body modification work."
-identity video pops up in the corner
Me: oh fuck right off that was too good.
Trans woman: boring, controversial, s c a r y.
Personal body modification hobbyist: cool, crafty, speaks to your depth of knowledge and general handiness.
@@DrTssha It's a social construct!
@@DrTssha And implies you're a cyborg 😂
Only slightly related: I know this has been said before, but how in the HELL is Abigail so fucking gorgeous!? She looks so much cooler when she’s presenting as a woman and I love it. As a lesbian girl I’m jealous, turned on, and thinking ✨*le philosophy*✨. 10/10 best channel on UA-cam
@@1a2b3c4d_ Because she is THE Abigail?
Me every Philosophy Tube episode: "This better not awaken anything in me...."
But... I mean... _that's what I'm here for._
Please let it, it's much nicer out of the closet
worried that you will also fall for the cult?
@@cartoonfreack9671 proceeds to exit the closet as a murderphile
@@niceboy7145 anime pfp, opinion disregarded
If I had watched this video when it first came out, I would've come out so much sooner. I wish I had seen this back then, but I'll take what I've got now! I already felt this way prior about socially constructed ideals, but I didn't quite have the grasp I needed to really wrap my head around it. I certainly didn't grasp that social constructs were so ingrained in our world that we interact with them without even realizing it.
Thank you for deconstructing this in such a thought-provoking way!
@@Renato404 lmao make me
I mean seriously, I'm over a year in, and almost a year on HRT. stop speaking out of your ass about complete strangers.
"We are tinkering with the engine of the world here, so drive safe." Fuck I've never been so excited about philosophy.
It's a trap, studying philosophy is actually pretty boring :D
@@ssj3gohan456 That’s why you make it fun :D
@@ssj3gohan456 Idk about you, as a PHL major student in uni right now, I wouldn't say it's boring. Frustrating, sure. But not boring
Never!? Take that back. Take it back rn.
honestly
"Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so."
-Douglas Adams
I am an enigma, for i live both by this principle, and every Hobbit mealtime on the clock. 😂
That... is actually deep.
@@beetlebob4675 Theirs is a healthy lifestyle, and the secret to their longevity.
"I HAD NINE'NEEN PINTS 'N CRASHED INNO A WALL!"
I love this channel.
I keep coming back to this video again and again. You explain yourself in such a complex, and yet understandable way, which makes heavy topics like this easier to grasp for us who have just dipped our toes in philosophy! I look forward to and appreciate every single video you make, but this one will always be my favourite! Thank you for the lessons
"She's Icelandic so she only has one name" is such a fitting joke for this topic.
omg dont tell me that was a joke! I was ready to go an spread it like actual information
@@MaviRB noooooooooooooooo
@@MaviRB well it's partially true. Icelanders generally don't have family names. Instead their name is followed by a patronym, so if your name is Daði and your father's name is Pétur, your name is Daði Pétursson, though you may also have a middle name, like Freyr, making your full name Daði Freyr Pétursson.
@@tr-h7217
Tyrion: this is Bronn You-wouldn't-know-himsson
It's funny, but I was so concerned people were going to miss the point *sweats in patronyms*
I'm so tired of explainig to people that "social construct" and "doesn't exist" are different things. Thank you for the video, this is fantastic!
It must be awful being so clever. It's difficult explaining to people with no understanding of the scientific method that 'exists' as idea and 'exists in experience' reality are not equal.
Well, something being a social construct means it didn't always exist until the construct was created. Which means it is essentially non-existent. In the same way money is a social construct and its existence depends on our collective belief in its value and the usage of it as a system of barter, any and all social constructed have to be created and their existence is dependent on the collective belief in and acceptance of the construct. It doesn't just mean they don't exist as intrinsic priorities, it also means they're incredibly fluid, in the same way there are different types of money with differing values and are based on different systems with different inspirations. The euro is literally a 20th century invention, it didn't always exist, but it was CONSTRUCTED as a means to unify Europe and use one currency that was valid in any of the countries that are part of the EU(ALSO a 20th century invention).
@@lukelyon1781 yeah ... and mothers existed before we came up with the construct .... the word mother is a descriptive word. I dont see how it can be compared with "coolness" or race or any "social consturct"
@@haverjamarosi680 no, giving birth and having babies existed before we came up with the descriptive role of motherhood and tribal people would collectively raise children, they weren't assigned and didn't belong to one set of parents. The role of motherhood and its ties to femininity were only invented within the last couple millennia or so. Meaning very recently in human history.
@@haverjamarosi680 If a woman adopts a child, she's legally considered the "mother" despite not biologically giving birth the child. The legal system allows her to make decisions about the child's life because of this "mother" status and the state can take the child away if she doesn't do it the proper way, regardless of any genetic connection. There's also social ideas about how a mother should act that people support or criticize - almost none related to actual biology or pregnancy. The child's strongest emotions and attitudes might be about their mother's connection with them.
So yes there is biological motherhood. But there's also this social idea of motherhood that has so much more meaning to us and is even legally enforced.
"I think that was an episode of Star Trek, actually" is a pretty common refrain in philosophy.
There was an episode where the crew lost their memories, and Worf assumed he must be the captain because he's the only one with a big shiny metal sash thing. The others are just like "Shit, seems legit. Congrats, captain"
@@loadeddice4696 Conundrum! Great episode!
Gene Roddenberry was way ahead of his time.
Lets be real if we got our memories erased and people didnt know what black people are people would freak out and wonder what the hell a black skinned human was.
@@dragongamer4753 same with white or asian people... Like of course people would be curious, surprised and a bit terrified about finding out something they didn't know existed. Like if we were to find blue skinned people we would probably freak out a bit too because it's something we didn't know existed. So what point where you trying to make?
This is a milestone for me. Never has someone put my intuitive feeling/understanding/perception of a topic so spot on into words.
Thank you so much.
"Everybody does NOT love Socrates."
That part!!! Reminded me of how much I hate Freud even tho all my classmates from psychology love him (and some people chose the course because of him), I love philosophy so much that if the one I do didn't exist I would choose that or sociology which I also love
@@turmalokadosguaxininsretar9926 like, recently your classmates took this class because of Freud? I'm not trying to be mean but that sounds like you went to school in the 1970s. The scientific consensus has been "Freud was a quack" for a while. His theories are mostly untestable. And the ones that were he didn't even bother to test. I really hope you went to college in the 70s.
Well he was sentenced to death ... So he must've been guilty, and deserved his sentence
I legit coughed/laughed while I was drinking water& this popped up 😂
Going to tag on here and note that this is very likely a reference to a recent twitter kerfuffle where Florida Republican Anthony Sabatini whined on twitter that Socrates would be "cancelled" today, of course completely oblivious to the fact that Socrates was executed for his beliefs.
On Earth two "Biggot" gets a whole new meaning :D
Smalltalk...
I groaned, but I can't deny the play was fair. Well done.
Therapist: “valley girl, baseball fan abi is not real, she can’t hurt you.”
Valley girl, baseball fan abi: 10:16
I thought it was pretty funny
Lmao I started crying
It's beautiful.
Don’t worry, valley girl baseball fan abi is also just a social construct
I feel so seen by this being the top comment.
I'm in university for sociology and I denied the link to philosophy the whole time. But actually, I see the link now. Of course, social constructs are a very important part of sociology, too. You explained it very well.
Social behavior is itself a biological phenomenon. "Social constructs" are emergent properties of biological mechanisms. Sex and gender are both culturally defined, but both are ultimately biological phenomenon stemming from the evolution of anisogamous reproduction and the resulting sexual conflict between males and females. Everything from differential anatomy and physiology, to gender roles, are simply elements of that trade-off operating and individual and group levels. Culture, itself, is a biological property (i.e., a mechanism of non-genetic inheritance of a behavioral phenotype). People can't really accurately talk about social constructs without a firm understanding of evolutionary biology and animal behavior.
@cjohnson3836 why are there different ideas of gender roles across cultures? Our current idea of gender roles has nothing to do with biology. Social constructs are emergent properties of societies. Social constructs being a result of our biology doesn't even make sense. You should put the biology book to the side and look into literature about sociology and anthropology. Might help with the stuff you're talking about.
@@cjohnson3836Absolute nonsense, you're essentially saying that nature is all-powerful and nurture is irrelevant, but that's clearly not the case. If you take identical twins and raise each twin in a very different environment then they'll likely turn out very different, despite their nature being identical.
Nature is obviously a factor of how certain cultural practices arise, nobody denies that, but to claim that it all boils down to nature & biology is ridiculous.
@@cjohnson3836 Creating a definition of culture that uses biological terms doesn't make it a biological property. Categorising everything as a "biological phenomenon" only works if you expand the definition (or, reconstruct the social category) of "biology" so far that it becomes useless. You can do it if you want, but then you'll need to create a new word for biologists to use to talk about the things that they study because, by your logic, accountants, art historians, and engineers are all biologists now too.
@@snapgabWell they'd have different characters since they're different individuals with different experiences. Nowhere in that experiment was it mentioned either of them transitioned. And aren't trans people trans precisely because their brains are similar with those of the gender they identify with?
This is my first Philosophy Tube video, and I'm like "Oh, this is why everybody loves her. Got it." Just excellent throughout.
Nice, you've got a fantastic backlog of vids you can trawl through at your leisure.
Aw, thanks! Welcome!
I check in once in a while for the cringe.
@@TheGerogero So glad you share your assholery with the rest of us
Yep. Near perfect mix of the philosophy and the politics
I feel like the controversial thing with social constructs is that some people think that if something is a social construct that means that it’s essentially meaningless or it doesn’t “really”exist.
Grasping what a social construct means takes some time. They are not meaningless nor inconsequential, but they are very much dismantleable and changeable
It's either so far in the background that people get stupidly, even murderously defensive about any challengers, or social constructs are a completely obvious foreground thing that it seems mere fleeting affectation, or silly personal style stuff. Thinking through the connection to actual everyday stuff is hard.
Well that is kind of the issue here.
If an idea is or concept is a social construct then the argument by those in favor of changing a definition is often that the definition of a word is arbitrary - and that because of its how arbitrary a category is... We can just change the definition - if people are excluded by it and that causes harm to them.
Yet the problem here is that human beings do not randomly form sounds and create definitions to math those sounds - words are not there in order to entertain us.
Words are created with the intent to be able to convey a piece of an information, an idea or concept. As such, the definition of a word should not be criticized on some conspiratorial notion of - "Who is benefitting and who is loosing from this" - but rather from the standpoint its utility.
We can argue and even agree then certain words may or may not have been intentionally created or the definition of a preexisting word was changed for political reasons.
However criticism based on an alleged conspiracy is pointless and for two reasons. First of, it is incredibly difficult to prove a conspiracy, if there is one then the evidence is not exactly going to be strewn around out in the open. Second and this is my main grievance with the - "its a social construct so therefore we could hypothetically change the definition and include anything and everything" - is that, what exactly is a word, why is a word and what happens to the utility of that particular word were the definition to be changed?
For example if we take the word "bowl" as in the bowl that one may suitably use to eat soup, stew, sallad and/or muesli out of. Then we take the work "plate" as in the plate from which one would eat, say pasta, a sandwich and/or Schnitzel with fries from. Now I say to you, we are going to stop using bowl and only use plate. You agree to this.
I get myself a drink while you sit at the dinner table reading a newspaper. I am standing standing at the cupboard and about to get myself a glass.
You are hungry and intend to eat some muesli. To be practical and efficient this requires the use of what was we previous agreed to call a bowl.
Now you say "would you kindly get me a plate".
What do I get? A plate or a plate?
By changing the definition of plate to include a bowl. I have drastically reduced if not eliminated the utility of the two word plate.
It is similar to the example of a doctor being required in a medical emergency.
It is good to be aware of a doctor is someone with the title of doctor, however in common parlance that is not the definition that is being used - and it does not have to be.
The reason for this is context - if a guy is passed out on the floor and I am shouting in a panicked voice. "Oi somebody get me a bloody doctor!" Then I am probably not in dire need of a doctor in philosophy to solve a dispute that me and my friend is having in a discussion about taxes.
It is also important and essential to asked - if a proposal was made to the definition of a word - especially when an amendment to a law which is currently in affect is proposed, as to why that proposal is being made. An interesting example of the an attempt to change the definition of a social construct - this is the ATF changed its interpretation of a "bump-stock", from it not converting a "firearm" into a "machine gun" to it now doing so. This is important because being in "possession," of a "machine gun" without the required paperwork is that it is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Fortunately, agencies like the ATF do not have the legal authority to decide what exactly a law means and how it ought to be interpreted. This lies with the courts.
Yeah exactly. Like how race is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's not real. It is very real, as is racism. It just has absolutely nothing to do with genetics or science (unlike ethncitiy which is a different thing that IS based on genetics, but there's no ethncitiy called "white people" and there's no ethncitiy called "black people", "white people" is a race, but it's made up of hundreds or thousands of different genetically distinct ethnicities who bear a superficial resemblance to each other in their appearance, and same thing with "black people").
Race is a social construct because it's made up by societies, and so depending on the country the person you're asking comes from, they'll define say for example "white people" as something different to how you define it from your country. 100 years ago, Irish and Italian immigrants in the US were considered not-white. But it became politically convinient to start considering them as "white" so they could he added to the big voting bloc in opposition to voters who are people of colour. Nothing about their genetics changed. They just used to be considered not-white, and now they are considered white.
But yeah that doesn't mean that racism against these immigrants didn't exist. Of course it did. That's why it was such a huge deal that JFK became president. It was as big a deal as Obama becoming president, because people just never believed an Irish man would ever be voted in as president, just like the next generation didn't believe a black man could be voted in as president, because of the huge amount of racism against both Irish and black people in the US
And that's another point that proves that race is a social construct, Obama himself. Obama is half black, half white. But nobody ever referred to him as the first mixed-race president. He was never considered even remotely white, even though that makes up half of what he is. "Black people" is something that has nothing to do with genetic reality. The "one-drop rule" is proof of this. Have even 1% of "black person" in your dna, and you're counted as 100% black. You have "one drop" of "black blood" and that's enough to socially construct your identity as "black"
That's why it genuinely is a big deal that Obama won. Because he was considered to be the first black president by everyone, on both sides of the aisle, and not the first mixed race president. And the racism against him was very very real, unfortunately. Even racism that somehow made even less sense than considering him black, instead many seemed to regard him as Arabian, even though he's not got any Arab "blood" in him at all. It was entirely based on his superficial physical appearance because being mixed race gave him the same sort of skin tone as what Arabs have, and the fact his middle and last name sounded middle Eastern.
But yeah. It's good to know whether things are social constructs or not. But a thing being a social construct does _NOT_ mean it's not real.
@Are You Going To Do The 'Ora Ora' Thing? Taking up Foucault's dispositif stuff, or Lacan's stuff on the Social Imaginary, even the things we don't put into words, and even what we can imagine, is all determined by, and determining of, social construction; by what others have said or built or how we have been heard, and such. Which isn't to say everything's just a delusion, or that no reality exists outside our collective consciousness. It's just to say our relation to reality is more complicated than the popular modern cartesianism left to us from the British Empire days.
Me, who relied on Butler's Gender trouble for his BA thesis a lot: "Out of my way kids, looks like I, for once in my life, did the reading for my class"
lol same
My phd is handy here
professor farnsworth to the fore
lol too relatable
Same lol
"Why are we projecting this stuff? Whose interests does it serve?"
These are the questions we can ask both sides too, such a thought provoking video!
Centrist detected
@@crunchylettuce5446🤓 “centrist detected”
What about questioning the interests of social groups is centrist
@@heb1999
I get disliking lettuce's comment. But you could take two seconds to think before insulting someone. South specifically went out of their way to point out how this can be useful to criticize "both sides". That's a common trait of centrists, pointing out how "both sides" have issues. This isn't proof that South is a centrist, but it's obviously a rather centrist thing to say. Also it doesn't really matter if South is a centrist.
Projecting what? Biological reality?
@@Woodsaras "Projecting what? Biological reality?" Projecting the need to be defined by biology. Why? And as per the video, why not height instead? Or some other random characteristic? Your genetic sex is a small part of what makes you who you are, you are not your sex any more than you are your brain or your legs or your hair. And if you are allowed to change your hair, why is changing your gender somehow so wrong?
This is the whole point.
What purpose does having *that* social rule serve, and to whom? Why do we care so much about it? And don't say "oh, but the toilets and changing rooms!" and "oh, but the sports contests!" cos those things can be fixed in a jiffy if we have the will. But you wouldn't really want that would you? Or the implication that - with these problems fixed - gender no longer needs to be nailed down.
Abigail is cool, and that's an underlying property of her existence.
So says the community.
You can't separate that, it's true.
after empirically observing all three of her jumpsuits, there is no doubt about that.
My brain after playing toooo much Control: “ oh cool, Jesse Faden cosplay!”
hes also a man
Wait.. Are social constructs like music genres?? Holy shit no wonder purists are so uptight
This is 100% it. People arguing over if something is indie or not.
Meanwhile I'm over here listening to gregorian chant and rap mash-ups
More accurately, music genres are a social construct
@@Jane-oz7pp As a layman I think I would dare go as far as to say that "Music" in and of itself is a social construct, and everything music-related has therefore to be built on top of it
@@EvlNinjadude Music is anything that is made with one or more musical instrument.
Now what is a musical instrument, you may ask?
Simple, it's any instrument used to make music
i think people get mad because they assume calling something a social construct is the same as saying it's not real
I mean in part it is an acceptance that the rigidity by which we hold these things is socially assigned not some inherent function of nature and reality.
That's the part I think really fucks with people, it's why the existence of gender is "basic biology" rather than social assignment based around primary and secondary sexual characteristics
You just neatly summed up something I've been thinking about this topic but unable to express properly for the last....while....
I get mad because a lot of "leftists" do take it to mean that and then argue we should get rid of gender. Gender is a real experience, the specific categories are social constructs but we need ways to express these human feelings. It's all cis bros and enbies that don't understand valuing your gender identity, like a bi person saying everyone should be bi
When they do that, I remind people that money is a social construct, and that they're free to challenge its reality in their daily lives if they wish
@@accomplishedpage644 I value your experience of gender, and all other people who feel it's relevant. To me, though, gender has never been a thing I could understand, it doesn't feel real to me. I've only ever experienced gender as something happening to me, it's never been more than abstract. I conform to the expectations put upon my biological sex, but it feels hollow. I'm an atheist at church.
Like many, during the pandemic I started to struggle, which led to my suspicions I had ADHD, with which I was later diagnosed, putting much of my childhood and family into fitting context. My wife's struggles led to an autism diagnosis with similar Revelations. And realizing how many of my friends and family seem to fit the bill, it had me asking questions, seeing the world through a neurodiverse lens. Which inevitably makes me ask, why? Why describe the world in these terms, grouping these clusters of symptoms and supposed causes together and giving them names and privileges and stigmas? Of course there are practical reasons: allocating resources, finding community and understanding, etc, at the cost of fighting for resources, creating outgroups etc. But really has me thinking, what's this all for? How real are these groups, diagnosis', etc. And does it matter how "real" they are? What do we do with all this?
that’s funny because water itself is not any color hahaha
@@luuuululuulu
People have become professional naval-gazers.
The nuclear apocalypse can’t come fast enough.
@@AliciaGonzalez-pk3mwshut up and stop acting like you know this guy’s life story based on a youtube comment
I love how there are more neurodivergent people than there are neurotypical. It's so contradicting.
@@AliciaGonzalez-pk3mw He wasn't diagnosed with ADHD "based solely on being restless during pandemic." That's your trivialisation of his actual experience which you know nothing about.
"There's a lot of pressure being cool... I imagine"
I am dying
haha 12:14
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a mate. We were discussing the differences between useful distinctions and fundamentally different according to the current understanding of the laws of the universe. Just because a distinction can be made doesn't mean its a useful one. I'm currently studying biology and the whole "kingdoms of life" WAS useful but things have been added, tweaked, rearranged and subtracted so it more accurately represents what's observed. Like in your platypus scenario, that illustrates that having the label of "mammal" to mean having x,y,z, properties is mostly useful. But in taxonomy, for the most part if a distinction is no longer useful it's ditched.
"A Chef will say that a tomato is a vegetable. A botanist will say it is a fruit. A philosopher will discuss weather a Bloody Mary is soup" - I forget who said this
The problems we see today are equivalent to botanists wanting tomatos legally classified as fruit and for chefs to be cancelled if they try to say otherwise.
I suppose I am happy to say all definitions are socially constructed but uncomfortable with the idea that by deconstructing all concepts we can arrive at something that is other than a social construct. I have not come to a final position on this and maybe never will, but I am considering the utility of certain constructs which is perhaps a more conservative point of view. I also agree with Kant in that I do not think we can know things in themselves so there is a world of representation we are unable to escape, but the awareness of this condition must inform our use of representation. For me that leads to a dislike of relativism and consideration of pragmatic considerations. A serious issue is how language contaminates all such considerations. I like the idea presented in this video of homeostatic clumps because these reveal anomalies in classification however the existence of the platypus does not mean we hare forced to change the definition of mammal because we have the option of making it an exception or a qualified or even ambiguous member of the family. It rather depends on how frequently it matters in a discussion of mammals, perhaps in the same way as most people still use Newtonian Physics but accept that Relativity and Quantum physics are required for certain matters.
@@SmileyEmoji42Meanwhile the sane people look on like “wtf why does any of this matter do whatever you want just don’t kill all the tomatos we kinda like those”
@@SmileyEmoji42"problems we see today"? You do know that there is a legal precedent set in America for tomatos being vegetables. And it was decided in 1893. So problems like these aren't just a modern thing. They've always existed and it's only in modern times that the ability to discuss them has become widely available. With this availability we can talk about more important things than tomatos
@@thestralspirit You totally missed the point.
I’ve been talking a bit to my friends about how much I love these philosophy UA-cam videos and I’ve realised they probably think I’m just having a big brain existential crisis, but in reality I’m having a big brain existential while watching a pretty car lady with crazy shoes and feeling like a simp
You get to do the learning of metaphysics you may have not been able to do before and you get to look at the pretty lady with the big boots.
Who is loosing here?
Simp is just a social construct :)
All I know is, I want those shoes! ^-^
@@PeruvianTreeProductions : And your comment is a factual construct. ^-^
You are the first person to properly explain this subject to me. I think I finally have (at least a basic) understanding. Thank you!
The only problem with this explanation is not that there is anything wrong with it ( it was quite brilliant ) its that it informs us as to the nuanced definition of the concept in a proper way, but it isnt being used in its proper way in the sociopolitical discourse.
So, we have intrinsic properties and other properties such as relational. Properly, man or woman is a relational property, but when they designed, say, girls restrooms at a school in the 50s, girl was not being used as a relational property, to those who designed it, girl was intrinsic. They meant that restroom for young human female, and they used that term to convey that.
So, when someone in a modern time say that young, or even adult human males should be allowed to use the girl's restroom. Trying to use the argument that something is a social construct is an end run around the actual reason for why a space was designed which on its own is an intellectually dishonest word game. No, people arent getting angry about it simply to justify hating trans people as suggested in the video.
All of this comes with a very large bag of baggage, and while the philosophy of what a social construct is, is useful, its important to remember that those who designed 'girl's rooms' or the 'boy scouts' were not philosophers. They may even have used the word erroneously, but, the purpose for their design is still what it was.
I really liked the part about social constructs.
Same, the concept of Social constructs is very interesting
The two of us are in agreeance with one another. Likewise, I also took pleasure from the particular segment of Abigail's production wherein disquisition ensued in relation to the concepts which have been created and accepted by an agglomeration of people subsisting together simultaneously in relatively organized groups arranged upon shared locality and curtural heritage.
How can you be sure though you haven't watched the video yet
@@martymcflyy6775 that’s the joke
I thought there was too much talk about social constructs I was hoping for a slightly broader discussion because I couldn't relate to this at all
"I had 19 pints and crashed into a wall" cought me completely offguard xD
Came back to the video a third time because it popped into my head and I had to hear it again.😂
18:53 had to repeat it too
NIGH-NEEN PINTS
It really needed a bruv on the end.
I love how as the conversation gets more real and personal, the more she moves into the car. Looking at social constructs, but ultimately demonstrating that we live within them.
Man I didn’t even notice that shit 😭 good eye!
Yeah and what's the meaning of change of clothes?
@@SwiftAmhe the shift from an observer or dissector of a social construct, and an active participant in the construct. Maybe? Idk, I’m only three minutes into the vid so far.
@@SwiftAmhe she's using more neutral clothing as an outside observer, but wears more gendered clothing while inside the car - i.e. the construct.
0_0
Your videos exhibit exceptional production value, capturing attention through their visual and auditory elements. Moreover, the depth and thought-provoking nature of your content engage viewers on a profound level, encouraging contemplation and philosophical inquiry. The manner in which you articulate your ideas, coupled with your extensive vocabulary, establishes you as an exceedingly proficient educator. Indeed, your intellectual prowess and eloquence are commendable. (IBCGPT) In my own words... Your smart words challenge my dyslexic ADHD mind to think deeper. LOL!
I think one of my favorite personal examples of explaining the constructs of race and nationality is a colleague of mine from grad school. For context we were in school in Germany... her parents are native Japenese, and our classmates [people from all over the world] would ask, "so where are you from?" And this was a very difficult question for her to answer: her PARENTS are Japanese, so she inherited their Asian physical characteristics. However, she was BORN in Argentina, first learned Spanish, and spent early childhood there. But her ID and passport was Canadian, because she had lived in Toronto most of her life. She now has the added aspect of her current physical address is German because she acquired her marriage visa with her German husband. So it always comes down with, what do you mean you ask "where are you from?", because her constructed identity can be broken down so many different ways.
Eyyyyy, a third culture kid! (Or whatever better term someone has come up with since Pollock had his epiphany...)
I love this example and it proposes further metaphysical debate of what properties makes a person from somewhere. I would love to hear her interpetation of that metaphysical identity.
Yeah, this happens a lot with Latin American people too, due to colonization and immigrants. The question "what is your race" isn't common at all here, it's so strange to see how common it is in the US or even Europe.
@@jwildan I'd love that. I was born and raised as a minority in my home country (by race I look the same), but now living in LDN, after 6 years, when someone asks me where I am from, I actually get angry. I wasn't pre-covid, but now I get angry. It was very surprising to me. Then I realized, over the past year I did make the decision to build and live the rest of my life here, I also went through lockdown as someone who worked in the entertainment/service industry, so I feel like I am from here. I never thought about this until it first happened to me, just a few days ago. The feeling of going through something extraordinarily hard together, also forms its own connection and circle of belonging. And as multicultural and colourful as we are in London, not having a harsh accent for a very long time now (I've met people who talk with very distinguished accent even after 10+ years, in which case ofc you'd ask where they are from!), I get offended when someone assumes I am not from London. :)
@@emptyness7 yeah, at school I didn’t know what to put except for “Hispanic/Latino” and …maybe “White”? It’s just stupid to have kids be this conscious about their physical appearance and how this affects other people’s perceptions of them.
That joke about the "Quidditch Team" was fucking brilliant. Holy shit, I was rolling.
Yup!
As soon as I heard it my face went so Pikachu- it's thinly veiled but very direct at the same time I loved it. Had me figuratively rolling for quite a while
Holy shit, I just realized
Possibly the single most subtle dig in the history of teh UA-cams
What joke?
Honestly, this feels like a perfect "intro to philosophy tube" video. Not because it's simple or taking some "baby steps", but because it is extremely accessible and walks you very well into the subject with great pacing, and without even being that long.
Shit i remember seeing your comment on immigration on a tldr video. You have a quite exquisite taste.
Hard disagree. This is easily one of her least thorough or consistent video. Perhaps easy to digest but really under-par compared to her other content.
Thank you SO much for this!!
I’ve been spending the last few years trying to educate myself on all manner of issues, my opinions on which were formed by people in no way qualified to do so, and this video is super helpful!!
It’s so nice to watch something that really makes one think, but it also helps me a lot because I’ve found that as I learn more myself, people challenge me and try to tear down my new understanding of things, and very often I have no response. But the cleverly worded analogies in this video are going to be great tools for me!!
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🥰🥰🥰
"Oh my gawrd, was that a strike????"
your American accent is STUNNING darling
First time I've heard a British person do a valley girl accent instead of the vaugely southern one they usually fall back on
10:16 for those wanting to hear it again
@@yusefabuissa6685 thank you immensely
As an American, used to seeing UK accents written out ("guvna" etc) I would love to see more of how non-US'ians write US accents.
The whole explanation of baseball made me realize I’m probably in the minority of philosophytube fans who also like sports
"I've just been doing a bit of... Body modification work" ☠️☠️☠️
FFS, I didn't even realise that.. My mind just went "Mhm - yes, CAR we've heard about that"
Has she now. I barely noticed.
Ffs ifkr shes so cool i am in love hihihuhuhuhuhihihihi
I love when Abigail says "Now you understand" like, I'm not sure I do but I appreciate the affirmation. You're a booster.
understanding is a social construct
I am a 65 year old southern gentleman. May seem strange but I miss you on UA-cam. Your take on philosophy is a treat.
13:25: Bio major here! In principle, for modern biology, the feature which determines whether an animal is a mammal or not is whether it's descended from the most recent common ancestor of all mammals, as defined by picking a few mammals from distant branches of the family tree. The scientific community did have to decide to include a monotreme among those defining mammals, but it's still a bit messy...and, in my opinion, there's a better biology analogy.
Species seem like pretty firm categories, aside from the odd hybrid or asexually-reproducing organism. (Which aren't so odd, but never mind that.) But looking at populations over time, things get messier. There had to be-for instance-a first mammal (the aforementioned MRCA). By definition, this first mammal would be a different species (and genus, family, order, etc) than its parents...despite the fact that the mammal MRCA has more in common with its parents than its parents do with most other members of their species.
This is most obvious in hominid evolution. We have a lot of fossils of primitive humans, from _Australopithecus_ to anatomically modern _H. sapiens_ and everything in between. Anthropologists draw lines between different genera and species...even though there are plenty of gray areas. The first _H. erectus,_ by definition, is closer to an australopithecine than to most _H. erectus_ specimens, which is why in practice, there _is_ no first _H. erectus_ specimen. Scientists disagree on where that line should be drawn.
I think species are an almost perfect metaphor for social constructs. They obviously reflect part of reality; cats are different from dogs, mammals are different from reptiles, _H. erectus_ are different from _Australopithecus._ The categories are, in some instances, helpful...but even a cursory glance makes it clear that they're artificial, and that drawing a hard line between closely-related specimens can have adverse effects. (Look at the creationists who see this disagreement as "evidence" against evolution, for instance.)
It only has one weakness-if your audience isn't very familiar with biology, you need to spend a couple paragraphs explaining your analogy for it to make sense.
A couple of caveats:
1. This isn't always how biologists did taxonomy; Linnaeus was categorizing mammals before Charles Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye, he couldn't have imagined the mechanisms behind the trends he noticed. Cladistic taxonomy is a relatively recent trend.
2. In practice, biologists tend to look at physical traits first to figure out what category an animal should fall into. This is a bit more sophisticated than petting them to see what kind of integument they have (ie, if they're fuzzy), but on a philosophical level it's closer to that than it is to deriving its classification from its place in the Tree of Life. Without sequencing its DNA or something along those lines, physical characteristics are what we use to estimate where a given species should go; you could argue that the only thing that's changed is our definition of what traits a mammals has.
3. Platypi _are_ adorable.
Came here to say this, thank you for explaining cladistics better than I possibly could have.
This comment is way too far down the comment section. Up you go! For science!
Great response here! Adding another caveat to say if you value your sanity Do Not try to extend this into plant biology.
@@saricella I'd argue that valuing your sanity and studying biology are incompatible in general, but I am a theoretical computer scientist, so who am I to judge? XD
BTW, what is the problem with plant cladistics? I know bacteria tend to mess stuff up with plasmids, but my biology in general is very rusty.
Oh fuck me there’s two of us in here now
no one:
19th century people: PLATYPUS IS A MAMMAL-TRENDER!!!!!!
Philosophy Tube is white and therefore racist. Black Lives Matter ✊✊✊
@@xstatic-ow5mz sorry bestie, you're a prole-trender
I think they're trolling
Me: “A platypus mammal-trender?”
Platypus: *puts on hat*
Me: *gasp* “PERRY THE PLATYPUS MAMMAL-TRENDER!!!”
@@xstatic-ow5mz nice strawman
"Your MOM is a social construct"
sickest burn of the year
So is yours.
😂😂😂😂
No I’m not😅
@@YourMom-fk8tb
Best response comment ever
@@SBelawski I know 😂😂
Thank you for this.
Love the format and approach. Gleefully, subbed.
Welcome!
@@PhilosophyTubeHe’s right. You’re a man. And you know it.
@Drewpeacock_2117 wow guys youve done it youve stopped trans you dont have to act like this anymore you can delete your accounts and stop commenting forever youve won
@Drewpeacock_2117 they were being sarcastic
@Drewpeacock_2117at the end of the day bro, why do you actually care if someone doesn't fuck with their born gender lmao
That early bit about wiping people's memories and seeing if they form the same social constructs reminded me of John Rawls' veil of ignorance from the last episode
Ooo, bonus points for you!
Well noticed! ^^ And I feel like one of the main criticisms of the veil of ignorance presented in that video, can more or less be reformulated as "If you construct a solution to society in ignorance of its social constructs, then you're not really making it for that society". If you construct rules for an ideal society that does not account for things like racism, then applying those rules to our society may not work as intended.
Since lots of people have been asking for the music, I found them and here it is:
Opening = 0:01 - Vidas Anónimas by Broex
Part Two = 9:16 - Bad Habits by Jules Gaia
Part Three = 15:25 - Eat My Freedom and Die by pär
Credits = 21:24 - I'm Not That Girl by The Devil's Sway feat. Bri Oglu
Thank you, I had heard "Eat my Freedom and Die" in a few videos but had no idea how to start looking for it!
Thank you!
Legit just thought “Boy surely the comments will have the end song” and then you materialise, thanks!
Not all heroes wear capes
We need more people like you
In the thumbnail, Abigail looks like the rebellious teen version of D'Arcy Carden from the Good Place
Prototype Bad Janet!
OH MY GOD. YOU ARE SO RIGHT?! THAT'S EXACTLY WHO SHE LOOKS LIKE. 👀👀👀👀
Oh my god she does
@Honkler Agent 🤡📣 aight lemme hear it then
HOLY SHIT THATS SO TRUEEEEE
Earth Negative One is blowing my mind.
"I had 19 pints and crashed into a wall."
Abigail's Geordie accent is a source of constant joy for me.
Fuck man, Abigail is so badass. I can confirm that that is an underlying property of her existance.
One might say it's intrinsic.
the community has decided that Abigail is super cool and badass.
Well here on earth 0 we don't have that. Badass-ness must be a social construct
@@12memomo i mean, any diversion from that opinion is treated as blasphemy, so...
@@susugam3004 no one HAS to like her, but then the question becomes, why do ya watch her if that is the case?
The way she talks about the foundation of gay rights sitting on the social construct of “born this way” has me thinking how some trans people of an older generation had to build their constructs around “diagnosable transsexualism” just to get hormones and surgeries. But a lot of younger trans people are kinda leaning into the personal freedom approach, and I can see how someone who’s transition was contingent on a diagnosis from a doctor would feel threatened by a shift in the view
@@lunchtimeiscrunchtime I want to understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t understand why this channel/video would insult you personally? I don’t think Abigail is trying to dismiss anyones experience, least of all yours as a fellow trans person.
I feel like both ideas can coexist since everyone is different. There are those for whom gender dysphoria is so severe that medical intervention is needed, but there are also those whose dysphoria is not as severe (or maybe they have none at all) yet still wish to transition medically or socially. Just because in the past, those with severe dysphoria (born in the ‘wrong’ body argument) were the only ones talked about/getting treatment doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine the social constructs around gender
In fact, I would argue that addressing the social perception of gender is key for cis people and trans people alike to understand huge aspects of the trans experience
@@lunchtimeiscrunchtime I would also challenge the point you make about biological manhood/womanhood. Because in the video, she admits that “nobody’s denying [inherent physical characteristics]” merely questioning why these physical characteristics matter so much socially. But she acknowledges that they do matter in our version of earth! In saying this, she is not denying “biological womanhood and it’s challenges” but questioning why those challenges exist at all. The answer it seems is because this is how we’ve been taught, and how we continue to teach our children to treat others based solely on physical characteristics tied to “biological sex”
@@lunchtimeiscrunchtime I took her response more to mean “that’s a very interesting thought! Let’s explore the philosophy behind these feelings” rather than a smug “here’s why you’re wrong” because I don’t think we actually settled on an “answer” since it’s all so subjective. The mother feels very passionately about her motherhood (completely expected!) but we’re examining which aspects of motherhood are attributed by the culture (ie Mother’s Day cards) and which aren’t.
Also thinking about it more, motherhood is a really good example when thinking of how this relates to gender identity and trans rights. The woman from the start of the video has tied her motherhood to biological aspects (carrying and birthing a child) yet a parent who adopts doesn’t have this physical experience. In essence, an adoptive parent is the very embodiment of socially constructed parenthood. Because they have chosen to adopt a child, we have conferred the social role of “parent” onto this person, despite never having had the physical or biological experience (carrying and birthing)
I may have gone on a slight tangent but I find these kinds of questions very interesting!
@dj Kplus yes but in general a "big" on earth two would also have a physical advantage over a "mini"
@dj Kplus How do they matter socially, though? It's not a real time strategy game where you compare "average stats" of men/women. They matter individually for the same reasons every physical trait matters, but there is a lot of overlap in physical power and strenght on men/women (and we can only measure them in terms of our culture, which further changes the results), so using sex/gender as a prescription for strength when other indicators like muscle mass and height are readily available isn't even practical.
This is an amazing way to learn philosophy. I love how its very abstract in that its describing something much more general. The way you describe it feels like a math lecture where first the abstract notion is presented and then examples are provided explaining how these abstract notions are used in application. Your explanations felt like a lecture in the mathematics department; I really enjoyed it.
Note for English speaking folks: There's an updated translation of The Second Sex from 2010 that fundamentally changes the meaning of the book (better representing de Beauvoir's meaning). If you're still using the old version, a lot of the stuff in this video is missing.
When did the update come out? Just need to know if I have the updated version or not
@@chicknorton8839 It's the Borde and Malovany-Chevallier translation from Vintage Classics
@@alexburns7259 Thanks
Wow! What a fun fact! I wonder if the second version was done by a female translator
How do we even know it represents their views better? What is the proof of that?
21:05 "When you leave the classroom, politics and metaphysics will come at you at the same time. We're not just doing philosophy for the hell of it. We are tinkering with the engine of the world here." - Abigail Thorn
This is inspiring. It makes me want to be in the company of Hamilton & Madison rather than Washington & Lincoln.
what does that second bit even mean
@@sydssolanumsamsys he's heterocurious
@@RO-wn1dg you don't need to change the world when you can force it to accept your self-perception, otherwise the world is something-phobic
Limiting "mother" to child birth only excludes all adopted mothers of children.
You're fighting about who gets to be called a mother when you should be fighting about why people who give birth to a child are treated so differently from those who haven't.
@@TheEvilCheesecake people can do more than one thing
@@TheEvilCheesecake could you expand on your comment please? I can't quite grasp what you are getting at.
@@TheEvilCheesecake they were just pointing at how that forum poster was using bad arguments about ranting against the social construct of 'mother'.
@@TheEvilCheesecake
Treated different ?
How so ?
This is as clear as it gets. Loved the video. It literally changed my mind on how I perceived gender identity before. I mean even before watching this, I was thinking about this seriously but this literally made the final push. Thanks for such simple and educational video.
Really?! This was clear?!
Sorry this was bs.
Basic biology will tell you what the underlying properties of a woman and a man is. These are pretty simple facts and no amount of hormones, makeup and surgery changes that.
"We are tinkering with the engine of *the world*, here. So drive safe." may be one of my favorite lines you've ever written. Brilliant script!!
"Do not carelessly denigrate social institutions or creative achievement" btw
I thought she was definitely going to play a clip of that car driving off a cliff Thelma and Louise style.
yeah!
Agreed!
“...I think that was an episode of Star Trek, actually.” I just realized that was my exact basis for my vision of your city thought experiment.
“It’s like cricket but even worse”
Never have I been so offended by something I so completely agree with.
I read this in Acaster's voice.
As a baseball fan who has had that fandom mocked a half dozen times today in things that didn't have anything at all to do with baseball but were just people scoring some cheap laughs, I am just fucking done with humanity for a while.
I brought my friend to a baseball game once forgetting he has a serious peanut allergy. I would say I won’t make that mistake again, but it looks like I won’t have the chance
I know your channel❤
I think ppl get so angry about these things bc everyone wants to feel important and to feel like whatever they’ve done with their lives was and is important.
When the labels that support their ideas of themselves are felt to be under attack, it feels like a personal attack that undermines and diminishes the foundation their identity is built on.
@@AliciaGonzalez-pk3mw why?
@@AliciaGonzalez-pk3mw Indeed. My seven-year-old came up with that one. But, you avoided answering my question with a snide remark. Why?
Hmm but women still create life right? You can’t change that. A man or anyone coming along to say how that is just a social construct would not be true. You can’t argue against nature.
"Muscle car is a social construct"
Seeing Abby in the Mustang made me realize that many car enthusiast are unknowingly constantly engaged in metaphysical debate. Ask 3 car enthusiasts if a Mustang is a muscle car and you'll get 4 different answers.
I think that's because you'd get 4 different Mustangs, from a wimpy 4 cylinder automatic base model to a BOSS 666 whatever. Is one of those a muscle car, and not the other? Are they even the same car? Metaphysics!
Mustangs are objectively a muscle car in my opinion, and the reason a 4 cylinder one isn't, js because it simply doesn't have muscle. 57 years of it being a muscle car doesn't get eliminated because of a few embarrassing models
There's only one muscle car around nowadays: the dodge challenger.
Friends had a long debate, one said a rally car was not a race car because race cars compete on race tracks and rally cars compete on rally stages. Therefore categorizing a rally car as a kind of race car (such as stock car, open wheeler, drag car, etc) was incorrect.
Same thing with car modding or restoring old cars. At what point is an LS swapped Miata no longer a Miata?
"I had 19 pints and crashed into a wall" is forever immortalised in my brain as the funniest one liner ever inserted into a UA-cam video without warning.
Timestamp 18:54
I liked it when she said "the balls underlying properties"
You know... Balls...
That would be 10:55
Agreed
I had to pause the video, and laugh for a good 30 minutes, on and off, before continuing. It got me good. XD
In a proper geordie accent
Many much excited for this one.
:O !!!
Yay Jessie!
Hi Jessie!!
Yay! It is Jessie. So cool 😎
This is my third philosophy tube for the day. I should start being productive, but I could also watch these videos all day.
"Hey, what are you doing?"
Philosophy Tube: "Hot girl shit."
she lookin REAL fine today
PanAm stuff.
I was gonna comment on how she is always attractive. Just a very good looking person. But this is a good place to put it.
Women in workoverals are way too hot..
So shall we all pretend this is a girl and everything is ok ?
I am transracial and identify as BLACK WOMAN. Pls take this into account when replying back !
Philosophy Brain: Hmm, yes, metaphysics. Quite fascinating.
Monkey Brain: Heehee! Pretty car lady!
Me watching this video: ah yes gender and race and sex are social constructs
Also me: booby lady time 😳☺️😳
@@anone.mousse674 Not this one.
yeah, yep
*I am looking respectfully*
Human brain: "Hmm yes we attach qualities to unrelated qualities and create opressive expectations and social constructs."
Animal Brain: "👀 HIPS"
"It's like cricket, but it's even worse."
As a fan of both cricket and baseball, I... have to concede the truth of that.
Okay, please explain to me how it's possible to like Cricket. Wouldn't it have gotten boring by the second day?
@@earzo7
Pippin: "What about Twenty20?"
Merry: "I don't think he's heard of Twenty20, Pip"
@@earzo7 The second day? Ha! Talk to me on the 25th day.
Seriously, before the plague it was the best excuse out there to stay home and do nothing for a whole month.
I don't know man. I love both sports but baseball is definitely better than cricket.
@@TravisPilgrim sports are all bullshit boring and useless exept you play it yourself