Hear me out. There’s nothing innate to an object that makes it “food”. It’s an attribute we give to certain things that meet certain qualities, i.e. being digestible, nutritious, perhaps tasty or satisfying in some way, etc. We could really ingest just about anything, but we call the stuff that’s edible “food”. Does that make it a social construct?

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    56·
    5 months ago

    This is one of those gender vs sex dealies.

    Food is not a social construct. But meals are.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.eeOP
      13·
      5 months ago

      ruh roh what if sex is also a social construct

      nah not going down that rabbit hole

      (wonder why we chose to group biological factors XYZ to determine those classes instead of classes based on ABC tho…)

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        22·
        5 months ago

        sex is also a social construct

        Can we also at least stick our head down that rabbit hole? Because holy shit yes that nebulous hybrid of social convention and biological (on a species level) necessity is also where food fits…

        (I am referring of course to sex the act, not the synonym for gender…)

        • TimewornTraveler@lemm.eeOP
          1·
          5 months ago

          I was actually speaking about the biological classification “sex”, not the act! I hadn’t thought about the act as a social construct, but I guess it obviously is. I’m reminded of the old lesbian conundrum: “Was what we just did ‘sex’ or…?”