This is Scientific Snitch, a fitness 'Science-Based-Lifter' primarily on tiktok. She's your typical college lib, women in stem archetypal East Asian woman not surprisingly dating a White man. I wanted to use this video to further highlight how they interact with social constructs and play this specific game to combat any dissenting opinion.
I don't want to upload every video of hers on the topic but I'll cover what her typical points are:
> It is a social construct
My response - Exactly this. The way she uses social construct in this situation is synonymous with 'not real'. Which is of course a misrepresentation of what social constructs actually are, and what people mean to discuss when they bring them up.
> Skin color is poly-genetic and doesn't inform on the persons phenotype or race
Response - This is correct, two people with the same skin tone may have different genes expressed that result in that same complexion but the argument is moot in my opinion because race itself would be poly-genetic since it would involve everything from hair texture, facial hair patterns, bone density, skull shape, behavior, and from external traits you can make educated guess on a persons genetic heritage, and from there you can categorize their race. She speaks as if two people not sharing the exact same genotype expressing their skin tone means you can't say they are both of one race. There is of course nuance, many Japanese people are very similar in complexion to say a Norwegian.
> Lactose tolerance is not a viable differentiation since it's simply an adaption for it to persist in adulthood, all races produce the lactase enzyme at some point in their life
Response - Also true, but I find this to be an argument only low IQ race realists make. Every video she talks about this is her replying to one.
> There is not one singular gene that is present in one race and not others
Response - Continuum fallacy, she makes a similar point when she talks about in other videos how genetic clusters are continuous/gradient or not discrete ergo you can't actually categorize them. Additionally the argument that because there is more difference between an East African and a West African than there is between any African and a European you also cannot draw a line on that is also a continuum fallacy and manages to be even more terrible of an argument. It is a favorite of these types to bring up this point based on a study comparing genetic diversity in humans. Of course, they fail to ever mention that subspecies almost always have greater variation within the group than between groups. This is called intraspecies variation, and happens because they get acclimated to their differing environment, and the greater diversity allows for better chance at survival. People like to harp on the Dog point about them all being different breeds, but that's exactly what intraspecies variation is. A Beagle is not a Bloodhound, they are both
Canus lupus familiaris. The argument of Africans being more diverse is especially bad because Africa is very big, with a wide variety of ecosystems, and the massive natural barrier that is the Sahara. All of Africa's conditions bode well for really isolating groups and having their differences ferment. Unlike say Eurasia with the vast open steppe which served well as a natural travel path. It is the 3rd most bio diverse continent (I'd bet it higher if the Sahara didn't occupy such a massive swath of Area limiting biodiversity in it to organisms that can survive arid conditions, a fraction of the animal kingdom. Also the Amazon definitely is what puts South America in 1st place), so any humans spread across it will naturally incur a great deal of differences in adaptions.
Some comments I wanted to highlight under that video:
