If "there's no such thing as race," is there such a thing as gender?

[Rand_Rover]

Bryan, yes, that’s what I had in mind.

[Rand_Rover]

@Rand_Rover

Good clarification, thanks. I’m talking about the physical stuff only–so “sex” by your way of talking. I’ve seen “gender” used as interchangeable for “sex” (and also used to mean the social aspects of sex, etc. etc. of course). Also, it’s the existence of those footnotes that creates the issue–it doesn’t matter that the footnotes describe only very few individuals.

By the way, I asked the question in the OP to Dorothy Roberts, author of “Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the Twenty-First Century.” Her answer was “gender is different.” I asked “how”? She said “it’s just different.” So let’s see if you guys can do better than her.

Andros, this is post 7 of this thread. It shows very convincingly that any unclaeity was in your mind only.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Okay, then my questions are:

1. How do you intend to define Racial Groups X and Y?

2. How do you intend to test if an individual belongs to Group X or Group Y, or both, or neither?

3. How do you plan to control for social and environmental influences?

I’d consider these bare-minimum for any serious statistical study, and already I anticipate considerable trouble satisfying even one point with any real rigor, let alone all three.

[Rand_Rover]

Bryan, the point is that anyone doing a study can and should provide details that answer your three questions. Other people can then question their methods. And they can show how their results would change if they had chosen tl group people differently than they did.

[Ibn_Warraq]

NM

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Rand_Rover

Bryan, the point is that anyone doing a study can and should provide details that answer your three questions. Other people can then question their methods. And they can show how their results would change if they had chosen tl group people differently than they did.

Well, I admit the possibility that a rigorous study could be conducted. I also admit the possibility that Santa Claus is real. I’m going to need some actual evidence of either to move beyond that point, though.

If you know of such a study (or have a picture of Santa Claus), I invite you to share.

[elucidator]

@Rand_Rover

…The most researched trait I am aware of is IQ, which of course you and others od your ilk dismiss out of hand on thebasis that “race is a myth” (thus showing the circular nature of your conclusions).

Thread Police, pull over. You’ll have to take a Cite-alyzer test so we can be sure you are not referring to utterly bogus research. Have you been reading *The Bell Curve *lately? And how many pages have you read?

Are you aware that the book is total crap? And has been analyzed, and debunked, and re-debunked? Now, if you have some other source for this drivel, please advise as to that source with a citation.

That a characteristic we may refer to as “intelligence” exists as a definable and, more importantly, quantifiable thing is a subject of spirited scholarly debate. That debate must be resolved before we can even play at quantifying it as a racial characteristic, even assuming that we had a viable definition of race to begin with. Which we don’t.

[Rand_Rover]

Luci, I love how you intimate that I haven’t read the bell curve (I have) when yo7 haven’t read it yourself (and you canlie if you want to, we know theteuth).

[Bryan_Ekers]

So are you citing The Bell Curve as an example of a study that has addressed my three questions?

[Rand_Rover]

Bryan, does it appear that I am doing that?

[Jas09]

Based on the typing in your previous post it appears you may be drinking…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Rand_Rover

Bryan, does it appear that I am doing that?

It was a simple question. If you are citing The Bell Curve (I book I’ve never read and have no strong opinion about, though I am vaguely aware of the controversy surrounding it), then I could look into it. If you are not citing The Bell Curve, then my invitation to cite something still stands.

At this point, your endless evasiveness and general fucking around has become tiresome. You have not proven the claim in your OP, or even lent it support in any way. You have failed, and no attempts at implying stupidity on the part of respondents will cover that.

[Rand_Rover]

Nope. Manufactured misunderstanding on the part of you, Blake, et al does not equal evasiveness and fucking around on my part. Ive stated my point clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly. Ive led you to water, it’s up to you to drink or drown (so far you appear to have chosen the latter).

[Telemark]

@Rand_Rover

Ive led you to water, it’s up to you to drink or drown (so far you appear to have chosen the latter).

It’s pretty hard to do either with a mirage.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Rand_Rover

Manufactured misunderstanding on the part of you, Blake

Well, at least I get to leave the thread with a chuckle.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Rand_Rover

Luci, I love how you intimate that I haven’t read the bell curve (I have) when yo7 haven’t read it yourself (and you canlie if you want to, we know theteuth).

Is this the post of someone who’s claiming that “black people” are, on average, less intelligent than “white people”?

If so, the irony is delicious.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

Rand Rover, I do not agree with your point of view but I would like to understand it better. I am going to provide a widely supported fact about human sexual differentiation:

Any human being that has some or all of the non-psychological traits we would categorize as being typical of the male sex has developed normally or exhibits a defect. The defect affects some aspect of Y-chromosome initiated male differentiation - SRY gene-initiated cascade.

(I included the link to give a hint as to what I mean by cascade. It essentially goes like this: A gene, SRY, on the Y chromosome is a transcription factor that regulates the expression of autosomal genes, leading to testicular development. Androgen from the testes induces further differentiation.)

Can you please provide an analogous statement for race? I don’t accept your argument because I can’t think of a similar statement. Maybe if you would provide one I would.

[Rand_Rover]

@Ibn_Warraq

Is this the post of someone who’s claiming that “black people” are, on average, less intelligent than “white people”?

If so, the irony is delicious.

Ive never made that claim. I simply am able to acknowledge the existence of studies that support that result without going apoplectic and hand-waving it away.

[Rand_Rover]

Inbred, it sounds like you want me to come up with a classification scheme for race, ie, to say “every white person has x.” That’s not what this thread is about. All this thread is about is to show that just because a classification scheme is not objective does not mean that it’s useless and the “race is a myth” people agree with that position when it comes to gender/sex.

[elucidator]

…I simply am able to acknowledge the existence of studies that support that result…

But, apparently, unable to cite them. Or unwilling.