I think she meant "exist by themselves, outside of social construct".
It doesn't make the point valid or not, I'm just trying to make it a little bit clearer. With no explanation or elaboration whatsoever, it's hard to tell. She may be referring to how race was once said to be a fundamental biological difference and men were classified in species, which we know now is untrue, but is still used in certain circles; however if that's the case the idea isn't widespread anymore so the generalisation is too big. Maybe she's referring to something else that I'm not thinking of at 2am. Maybe her point is as void as the post suggests. Twitter isn't great for actual arguments.
I said fundamental. People used to be classified as different species. Of course their are geographical adaptations. You can say for instance that race does exist but many of the oppositions added around it are social constructs. I was just explaining why this tweet can be attacked and discussed on many levels, but the formulation wasn’t antithetical as the post suggests. There could maybe have been a discussion with arguments stemming from this post.
It doesn't make the point valid or not, I'm just trying to make it a little bit clearer. With no explanation or elaboration whatsoever, it's hard to tell. She may be referring to how race was once said to be a fundamental biological difference and men were classified in species, which we know now is untrue, but is still used in certain circles; however if that's the case the idea isn't widespread anymore so the generalisation is too big. Maybe she's referring to something else that I'm not thinking of at 2am. Maybe her point is as void as the post suggests. Twitter isn't great for actual arguments.