‘I Basically Just Made It Up’: Confessions of a Social Constructionist

If I had known, 20 years ago, that my side in the ideological wars over gender and sex was going to win so decisively, I would have been ecstatic. Back then, I spent many evenings at the pub or at dinner parties debating gender and identity with other graduate students; or, really, anyone who would listen—my mother-in-law, my relatives, or just a random person unlucky enough to be in my presence. I insisted that there was no such thing as sex. And I knew it. I just knew it. Because I was a gender historian.

This was, in the 1990s, the thing to be in history departments across North America. Gender history—and then gender studies, more generally, across the academy—was part of a broader group of identity-based sub-disciplines that were taking over the liberal arts. History departments across the continent were transformed. When the American Historical Association surveyed the trends among major fields of specialization in 2007, and then again in 2015, the single largest field was women’s and gender history. This was right up there with social history, cultural history, and the history of race and sexuality. Each of these fields shared the same worldview as I did—that just about every identity was a social construction. And, that identity was all about power.

Back then, quite a few people disagreed with me. Almost nobody who hadn’t been exposed to such theories at a university could bring themselves to believe that sex was wholly a social construct, because such beliefs went against common sense. That’s what makes it so amazing that the cultural turnaround on this issue has happened so quickly. Reasonable people might readily admit that some—and maybe a lot—of gender identity is socially constructed, but did this really mean that sex doesn’t matter at all? Was gender solely based on culture? Yes, I would insist. And then I would insist some more. There’s nothing so certain as a graduate student armed with precious little life experience and a big idea.

And now my big idea is everywhere. It shows up especially in the talking points about trans rights, and policy regarding trans athletes in sports. It is being written into laws that essentially threaten repercussions for anyone who suggests that sex might be a biological reality. Such a statement, for many activists, is tantamount to hate speech. If you take the position that many of my ’90s-era debating opponents took—that gender is at least partly based on sex, and that there really are two sexes (male and female), as biologists have known since the dawn of their science—uber-progressives will claim you are denying a trans person’s identity, which is to say, wishing ontological harm upon another human being.

https://quillette.com/2019/09/17/i-basically-just-made-it-up-confessions-of-a-social-constructionist/

More to read on the link. Brilliant article and it really shows up how we are seeing more and more psudo science coming from the left. Which is bscially ideological and the reason it has taken hold. Is because the left hold many of the major positions within teaching.

Who would have thought that today that people on the left are basically the new creationists, flat earthers and deniers of science

Its become basically a cult

I think if you were to do a proper survey and ask left-leaning people whether "male" and "female" are real, the vast majority of them would say they are.

This is just more boring-ass nutpicking.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think if you were to do a proper survey and ask left-leaning people whether "male" and "female" are real, the vast majority of them would say they are.

This is just more boring-ass nutpicking.

Well until you go on twiitter and  actually see people from scienitific backgrounds are arguing from this. Then I suggest you shut your pie hole and do some actual bloody journalism. Because in this instance you are fucking clueless here.

Here would you like an example?


https://twitter.com/TriciaFrasman/status/1171475950023786496

This shows how the insanity is spreading away from actual science to make arguments that sex is a social construct

But ben continually wants to bury his head in the sand as per usual

I mean thankfully it is some biologists on the left now finally speaking out on this madness. Many are appalled in having to agree With Tucker carlson

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1173867412392992768

Would you like some more EXAMPLES Ben, as this psudeo science is creeping into main academia?

Humans are in a lineage that has been sexual—that is, sexually reproducing—for 500 million years. Uninterrupted. Once our ancestors discovered sex, not once in our lineage did we go asexual. 1/8

https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1173325325918322688

As usual the head in the sand ben fails see to problems on the left when they are in academia. At least people in the center like me can condemn the legt and right and Liberals. For ben to go off what the majority of the left think now is whataboutism and fails to see how quickly this new cultism has taken hold in academia

Either you simple do not care about this and happy to allow the erosion of science to political ideology. Or you do care, and simple are to afraid to speak out.

Laters

My point is that you shouldn't base your opinion of what "the left" thinks on what you hear from a few people.

Otherwise, you're the guy who got beaten up by someone of another race and now hates everyone of that race -- i.e., stupid.

Also, I saw no insanity in that Twitter thread you posted, would you care to point it out?

Explain it to me like I'm five years old.

Ben Reilly wrote:My point is that you shouldn't base your opinion of what "the left" thinks on what you hear from a few people.

Otherwise, you're the guy who got beaten up by someone of another race and now hates everyone of that race -- i.e., stupid.

Also, I saw no insanity in that Twitter thread you posted, would you care to point it out?

Explain it to me like I'm five years old.

Its not just a few people you numpty

Again as per usual Ben is dismissive where again the point being this is being allowed into academia through those on the left. Not people on the righ. Academics on the left and you being left. Try again to down play this as if its not important

I imagine you have the intellect of a 5 year old if you cannot see what is wrong when now people are arguing that sex is not binary

Again this is what makes me sick is how pathetic the left have become and you, Eilzel (he backs a terrorist antisemite) and others are provging this. People who claim to back science are then silent or try to downplay these problems.

You only speak out on religious idiocy around science but when its leftist idiocy around science, you make every pathetic excuse in the book

Well these idiots are pushing people into sides and i am going to be on the right side of history standing up to these idiots

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:My point is that you shouldn't base your opinion of what "the left" thinks on what you hear from a few people.

Otherwise, you're the guy who got beaten up by someone of another race and now hates everyone of that race -- i.e., stupid.

Also, I saw no insanity in that Twitter thread you posted, would you care to point it out?

Explain it to me like I'm five years old.

Its not just a few people you numpty

Again as per usual Ben is dismissive where again the point being this is being allowed into academia through those on the left. Not people on the righ. Academics on the left and you being left. Try again to down play this as if its not important

I imagine you have the intellect of a 5 year old if you cannot see what is wrong when now people are arguing that sex is not binary

Again this is what makes me sick is how pathetic the left have become and you, Eilzel (he backs a terrorist antisemite) and others are provging this. People who claim to back science are then silent or try to downplay these problems.

You only speak out on religious idiocy around science but when its leftist idiocy around science, you make every pathetic excuse in the book

Well these idiots are pushing people into sides and i am going to be on the right side of history standing up to these idiots

Wow, you sound just like the people you condemn for bashing Trump supporters.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Its not just a few people you numpty

Again as per usual Ben is dismissive where again the point being this is being allowed into academia through those on the left. Not people on the righ. Academics on the left and you being left. Try again to down play this as if its not important

I imagine you have the intellect of a 5 year old if you cannot see what is wrong when now people are arguing that sex is not binary

Again this is what makes me sick is how pathetic the left have become and you, Eilzel (he backs a terrorist antisemite) and others are provging this. People who claim to back science are then silent or try to downplay these problems.

You only speak out on religious idiocy around science but when its leftist idiocy around science, you make every pathetic excuse in the book

Well these idiots are pushing people into sides and i am going to be on the right side of history standing up to these idiots

Wow, you sound just like the people you condemn for bashing Trump supporters.

Well that has to be the worst whataboutism going

Even more when you never read through 3 twitter links and the hundreds of tweets made

So you asked me what was some about and I gave an answer and you provide more whataboutism

My view is that people need to defend science and stand up to psuedo science

As you already do when it comes from the religious, but when from leftist academics, you make excuses, downplay and do everything you can to bury your head in the sand over this

I did check out that first Twitter thread you sent, and I really couldn't see anything weird about the argument the lady was making. I'd love if you could point out a few things in it to me, rather than bashing me and calling me names, if that's all right by you.

I have stood up to for years psudo science from the right around race. You do not see me be silent but stand up for what is right. The same with psuedo science by the right on homosexuality. Again I stood up and countered poor claims. I have constantly stood up to poor science from the right with climate change deniers. I can give more examples and you have happilly joined me Ben in countering these poor psudeo views from the right. I do not shy away from countering political ideology disgused as science. Yet when they start coming from the left, where you should be joining me to counter and speak out. You make every excuse in the book and come out with the worst denialism

To me you are just about one of the worst hypocrits going because you only act politically and not scientifically. You only act in what poloitical favour you follow. I find that shallow and beyond belief.

phildidge wrote:I have stood up to for years psudo science from the right around race. You do not see me be silent but stand up for what is right. The same with psuedo science by the right on homosexuality. Again I stood up and was countered countering poor claims. I have constantly stood up to poor science from the right with climate change deniers. I can give more examples and you have happilly joined me Ben in countering these poor psudeo views from the right. Yet when they start coming from the left, where you should be joining me to counter and speak out. You make every excuse in the book and come out with the worst denialism

To me you are just about one of the worst hypocrits going because you only act politically and not scientifically. You only act in what poloitical favour you follow. I find that shallow and beyond belief.

But I have to go back to your initial claim; that this is coming from "the left" as in me and other lefties who aren't gender academics.

I'm not defending anything these academics are saying -- I really can't be bothered to delve into it, it seems like a madhouse -- but you shouldn't say "the left" is responsible for this, as though it's every lefty's fault.

Ben Reilly wrote:I did check out that first Twitter thread you sent, and I really couldn't see anything weird about the argument the lady was making. I'd love if you could point out a few things in it to me, rather than bashing me and calling me names, if that's all right by you.

Beggars belief. Read through all the replies and research. Stop being a lay wally when one is on a claim that sex is not bianry, which is gibberish. Another claims another can simple claim to be the opposite sex. Another explains biology science, the third in reply to many of these poor claims. I am not here to babysit you. I would rather you actually read through , but as seen you read a couple of replies and bury your head in the sand.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:I have stood up to for years psudo science from the right around race. You do not see me be silent but stand up for what is right. The same with psuedo science by the right on homosexuality. Again I stood up and was countered countering poor claims. I have constantly stood up to poor science from the right with climate change deniers. I can give more examples and you have happilly joined me Ben in countering these poor psudeo views from the right. Yet when they start coming from the left, where you should be joining me to counter and speak out. You make every excuse in the book and come out with the worst denialism

To me you are just about one of the worst hypocrits going because you only act politically and not scientifically. You only act in what poloitical favour you follow. I find that shallow and beyond belief.

But I have to go back to your initial claim; that this is coming from "the left" as in me and other lefties who aren't gender academics.

I'm not defending anything these academics are saying -- I really can't be bothered to delve into it, it seems like a madhouse -- but you shouldn't say "the left" is responsible for this, as though it's every lefty's fault.

Its come from leftist ideology, not right wing. Who else is to blame for this
Its like claiming Christians were not responsible for the crusades
For fuck sake

Didge. I think I should maybe clarify: you can’t claim all left wings people are the same. That's like saying all Muslims are the same, all women are the same, all children are the same etc etc.

eddie wrote:Didge. I think I should maybe clarify: you can’t claim all left wings people are the same. That's like saying all Muslims are the same, all women are the same, all children are the same etc etc.

I am not claiming all left wing people and never have

I stated quite clearly this is coming from academics in the left and most of the academics these days are from the left

I even said some on the left are now standing up to these but some are finding their jobs under threat for doing so

Its become completely political because the majority of positions in academia are held and controlled by the left

This is already being taught as main stream in many Universities now and its at odds with biology

So when I say its coming from the left its coming from the left

That does not mean all people that lean left or support left policies

Its ben that as per usual misconstrued what I said to get out of bloody taking such problems seriousl, because he is denial of this and of the left doing any wrong

Fair enough. I just thought I’d clarify the misunderstanding. I’ll leave you two to it.

eddie wrote:Fair enough. I just thought I’d clarify the misunderstanding. I’ll leave you two to it.

It was obvious, but when people hold a politicla bias, they see only what they want to see.

Hey ho the thread is done, because i am seeing the same more and more often happen in debate. Continual downplaying, claim they cannot see what is wrong etc

Night

Okay.

"its coming from the left

That does not mean all people that lean left or support left policies"

To me, "the left" means exactly the same thing as "all people who lean left or support left(ist) policies."

If I were to talk about "the right," I'd be referring to all people who are more than a little to the right of center. Presumably, all such people in the world.

That's why I try to be more specific, because when you lay blame, you should be as specific as possible. "West Coast, far-left American academics" is much more specific than "the left," for example.

Sorry. I have this thing where I can't proceed in a debate if I disagree with the premise of the original argument, which in the case of this thread did read as being that "the left are basically the new creationists, flat earthers and deniers of science," in Didge's own words.

So we have Ben elude to more whataboutism, more denialism and now he is only going to debate something when he understands who this is coming from?

I mean WTF.

As Ben is cherry picking one sentencing ignoring what I said before. So after that I cannot be bothered with Ben, when he is now deliberately looking to misconstrue what I said. Knowing full well that I stated clearly who this was coming from on the left with those in teaching positions. Fucking bored with bullshitters

Its hardly going to come from your average leftist joe is it?

Hence I cannot stand it when Ben set up to bullshit this threadt with idiotic deflections. Of a claim i never made.

He did this deliberately, and again fails to see these are people from the left creating pseudo science

Frankly am bored with bullshit and have come to the conclusion that cass is the only sensible open and honest lefty on here. The rest are hypocrits and come out with the same bullshit deflection that ben always does

Your boring site has become as boring as fuck and you have become very dishonest ben

I am not going to be here much anymore as what is the point when its mainly those on the left here that engage in dishonest debate

Laters

19 posts and nothing talked about within the article

How many of my threads of late have happened this way and always from the lefties on here. Because they are utterly dishonest and cannot actually talk about problems on the left. They use every pathetic ploy to get out of debating them and derailing them with pathetic claptrap

Go figure

It wasn't a deflection, it was an honest point of contention. I think you're reading ill intent into what I said where none was intended. At any rate, probably best to just drop it at this point, and maybe pick it up later.

eddie wrote:Didge. I think I should maybe clarify: you can’t claim all left wings people are the same. That's like saying all Muslims are the same, all women are the same, all children are the same etc etc.

But you can expect those that are different to point out their differences.

That rarely happens.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge. I think I should maybe clarify: you can’t claim all left wings people are the same. That's like saying all Muslims are the same, all women are the same, all children are the same etc etc.

But you can expect those that are different to point out their differences.

That rarely happens.

I don't think it's my responsibility to remind people that I'm an individual, not to be lumped in with all other Texans, men, white people, liberals, atheists, 40-somethings, etc.

I will remind people not to do that, but I don't waste my time "un-lumping" myself. If you stereotype me, I dismiss you.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge. I think I should maybe clarify: you can’t claim all left wings people are the same. That's like saying all Muslims are the same, all women are the same, all children are the same etc etc.

But you can expect those that are different to point out their differences.

That rarely happens.

I don't think it's my responsibility to remind people that I'm an individual, not to be lumped in with all other Texans, men, white people, liberals, atheists, 40-somethings, etc.

I will remind people not to do that, but I don't waste my time "un-lumping" myself. If you stereotype me, I dismiss you.

And therein lies my problem with all forums. You get a label and that’s your label.
Because people are lazy.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

But you can expect those that are different to point out their differences.

That rarely happens.

I don't think it's my responsibility to remind people that I'm an individual, not to be lumped in with all other Texans, men, white people, liberals, atheists, 40-somethings, etc.

I will remind people not to do that, but I don't waste my time "un-lumping" myself. If you stereotype me, I dismiss you.

I wasn't really talking about you describing yourself.

I think you could say that one of Sanders' ideas is bat shit crazy, or something a long those lines.

But you go easy on dumb ideas from the left, and attempt to go hard in the paint when the right has dumb ideas.

Ben Reilly wrote:My point is that you shouldn't base your opinion of what "the left" thinks on what you hear from a few people.

Otherwise, you're the guy who got beaten up by someone of another race and now hates everyone of that race -- i.e., stupid.

..................

Too true that,  Ben...

We have increasing seen Dodge, Victor and Freddie increasingly attacking their collective enemy "the 'liberal' left"  any kind of academic or economic lunacy currently being inflicted on society, no matter how trivial..

And irregardless of whether it actually originates with any "left wing" entities or not.

And throwing all "left" leaning people into the same pot (which would mean including you and eddie, Andy, Quill, Lurker, veya, eilzel, Cass, as well as myself..), and as Dodge regularly does on here --  claiming that all left wingers on here are automatically apologist 'Marxist' commies..

'Wolfie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:My point is that you shouldn't base your opinion of what "the left" thinks on what you hear from a few people.

Otherwise, you're the guy who got beaten up by someone of another race and now hates everyone of that race -- i.e., stupid.

..................

Too true that,  Ben...

We have increasing seen Dodge, Victor and Freddie increasingly attacking their collective enemy "the 'liberal' left"  any kind of academic or economic lunacy currently being inflicted on society, no matter how trivial..

And irregardless of whether it actually originates with any "left wing" entities or not.

And throwing all "left" leaning people into the same pot (which would mean including you and eddie, Andy, Quill, Lurker, veya, eilzel, Cass, as well as myself..), and as Dodge regularly does on here --  claiming that all left wingers on here are automatically apologist 'Marxist' commies..

The right-wingers get so sensitive if you say something that implies that they're all racists, but seem to think nothing of painting the left with the same brush.

I don't know if it's a tit-for-tat thing, but if so, that's pretty stupid as well.

Ben Reilly wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


Too true that,  Ben...

We have increasing seen Dodge, Victor and Freddie increasingly attacking their collective enemy "the 'liberal' left"  any kind of academic or economic lunacy currently being inflicted on society, no matter how trivial..

And irregardless of whether it actually originates with any "left wing" entities or not.

And throwing all "left" leaning people into the same pot (which would mean including you and eddie, Andy, Quill, Lurker, veya, eilzel, Cass, as well as myself..), and as Dodge regularly does on here --  claiming that all left wingers on here are automatically apologist 'Marxist' commies..

The right-wingers get so sensitive if you say something that implies that they're all racists, but seem to think nothing of painting the left with the same brush.

I don't know if it's a tit-for-tat thing, but if so, that's pretty stupid as well.

It is stupid.

You should be painting the right and the left with the same brush.

Ben Reilly wrote:It wasn't a deflection, it was an honest point of contention. I think you're reading ill intent into what I said where none was intended. At any rate, probably best to just drop it at this point, and maybe pick it up later.

Its a complete deflectoion because at no point have you debated the topic, hence dishonesty because you got wrong what I said

Some honesty on your part went yet agin amiss here

Quelle surprise

How many posts have the left posters deflected here and avoided what the article speaks of?

Every single post they made

I rest my case

'Wolfie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:My point is that you shouldn't base your opinion of what "the left" thinks on what you hear from a few people.

Otherwise, you're the guy who got beaten up by someone of another race and now hates everyone of that race -- i.e., stupid.

..................

Too true that,  Ben...

We have increasing seen Dodge, Victor and Freddie increasingly attacking their collective enemy "the 'liberal' left"  any kind of academic or economic lunacy currently being inflicted on society, no matter how trivial..

And irregardless of whether it actually originates with any "left wing" entities or not.

And throwing all "left" leaning people into the same pot (which would mean including you and eddie, Andy, Quill, Lurker, veya, eilzel, Cass, as well as myself..), and as Dodge regularly does on here --  claiming that all left wingers on here are automatically apologist 'Marxist' commies..

Further on the point, I have said many times that RW'ers are not thinkers.  Their ideology is me, me, me...and not much more to think about.  Atrophy breeds mental weakness.  As a result, RW'ers tend to think in slogans, bumper stickers and like mental trinkets.

Of course they do not bother to learn what Marxism, or Capitalism, or socialism is...they are branders, not thinkers.  Of course, again, they do not attempt to learn what their opponents are saying.  The brand "lefty" will suffice for their limited intellectual processing.