Race and gender are usually questioned whether they exist, exist as natural kind, or exist as products of the society. In this paper, I will talk about Nagel and Wilkes’ ideas on personhood, and how they are related to natural kinds. Then, I will present and compare between Haslanger and Sveinsdottir’s accounts on gender and between Mills and Spencer’s account on race. Finally, I will explain why race and gender can’t cease to exist.
At the beginning, we should know that thought experiments are used in discussions about personal identity because there are cases that we can’t investigate empirically. For example, Derek Parfit suggests a case that we separate a person brain’s two hemispheres and place them into two distinct bodies without brains. …show more content…
Even though Haslanger doesn’t say much about biological sex, she believes that gender is the social meaning of sex. To demonstrate, she claims that women, presumed to have biological evident for reproduction (uterus), is a social class and is also subordinated systematically. Likewise, men, presumed to have biological evident for reproduction (testicle), is a social class and is also privilege systematically. For instance, in every culture, women are seen as underprivileged and they are oppressed because they are women. Oppression can be in different forms like exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, culture imperialism, and violence. Then, it is undeniable that women around the world have to suffer oppression, and it becomes a norm that women are subordinated. Additionally, we can say that Haslanger’s account is a version of Sveinsdottir’s conferralist account. Sveinsdottir explains that to be conferred is to be constructed, or determined, by subjects or groups of subject. For example, in baseball, a pitch is not determined to be a ball or strike by how it move but by the umpire, who has the authority to judge. As a result, Sveinsdottir believes that gender is conferred by the society, which is also what Haslanger think on her account of …show more content…
He believes that race is objectively true but in a sense of intersubjectivity. First, we should know that Mills categorize himself as an objectivist on the topic of race, which means race exist independent of us. However, he doesn’t believe that race is natural kind and there is no biological fact of race. In addition, he claims that he is most sympathetic to the idea of race as being socially constructed. Therefore, he thinks that race is constructed by the results of beliefs and practices of society throughout history, which are subjective, but, together, they create an intersubjective sense that give us no control on the matter of race. For example, a white person is determined by his white skin, privilege social standing, white ancestors, and more. However, Mill also believes that ancestry is an insufficient criterion for determining a person’s race because, in the case of intermarriage, ancestry can’t determine the race of the children, and the biological features that they inherit from their ancestors are random and can’t determine their races, so it is usually determined by public policy decision. In that sense, there is no biological features that related to
At the beginning, we should know that thought experiments are used in discussions about personal identity because there are cases that we can’t investigate empirically. For example, Derek Parfit suggests a case that we separate a person brain’s two hemispheres and place them into two distinct bodies without brains. …show more content…
Even though Haslanger doesn’t say much about biological sex, she believes that gender is the social meaning of sex. To demonstrate, she claims that women, presumed to have biological evident for reproduction (uterus), is a social class and is also subordinated systematically. Likewise, men, presumed to have biological evident for reproduction (testicle), is a social class and is also privilege systematically. For instance, in every culture, women are seen as underprivileged and they are oppressed because they are women. Oppression can be in different forms like exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, culture imperialism, and violence. Then, it is undeniable that women around the world have to suffer oppression, and it becomes a norm that women are subordinated. Additionally, we can say that Haslanger’s account is a version of Sveinsdottir’s conferralist account. Sveinsdottir explains that to be conferred is to be constructed, or determined, by subjects or groups of subject. For example, in baseball, a pitch is not determined to be a ball or strike by how it move but by the umpire, who has the authority to judge. As a result, Sveinsdottir believes that gender is conferred by the society, which is also what Haslanger think on her account of …show more content…
He believes that race is objectively true but in a sense of intersubjectivity. First, we should know that Mills categorize himself as an objectivist on the topic of race, which means race exist independent of us. However, he doesn’t believe that race is natural kind and there is no biological fact of race. In addition, he claims that he is most sympathetic to the idea of race as being socially constructed. Therefore, he thinks that race is constructed by the results of beliefs and practices of society throughout history, which are subjective, but, together, they create an intersubjective sense that give us no control on the matter of race. For example, a white person is determined by his white skin, privilege social standing, white ancestors, and more. However, Mill also believes that ancestry is an insufficient criterion for determining a person’s race because, in the case of intermarriage, ancestry can’t determine the race of the children, and the biological features that they inherit from their ancestors are random and can’t determine their races, so it is usually determined by public policy decision. In that sense, there is no biological features that related to