No, phenotype of a population being different is not social construction Ethnicity is a social construct, Nationality is a social construct. Race or Phenotype is not a social construct but a reality. When i mean by "ethinicity" being a social construct, the most iconic example is the US definition of ""hispanic/latino"". which makes no sense and no other country used that definition. Even literal nazis. Egon Albrecht was a Brazilian born luftwaffe iron cross ace. Richard Darre, a Argentine born minister. Both guys would be considered "oppressed minorities" on US. Not because they have anything genetically similar to "mestizos" and different than Germans but due a arbitrary ethnic definition.
Phenotype characteristics and certain regions of the world favoring different characteristics is not "social construction". Pale skin in middle of central Africa is not a characteristic that will be "promoted" by the environment. The fact that a lot of populations had neanderthal DNA is not social construction either.
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Incidentally, no one has explained why Faerun and Rivelon have achieved gender equality. Women can be warriors or enchanters / necromancers or paladins. Was there a women's movement at some point? Why are these worlds more equitable than our own?
On first editions of D&D, woman was weaker than man. They changed because accessibility and avoiding controversies got more important than internal consistency. IMO in some societies makes sense to woman be equal to man and some even superior, see the Drow societies. But most human societies should be patriarchal.
But i really don't wanna see dark sun for 5e because dark sun will be far different to be adequate to modern politics. We can't have a game like Gothic in modern times or the butthurt will be extreme.
