Haha, no worries. It's easy to get riled up by stuff online. I appreciate you giving me the thoughtful response in return.
I responded to you with so much detail because I feel that you've pulled out a bit of nuance and instability in the way I think about social constructs. It would be very easy to go around justifying how everything as a social construct, but that wouldn't end up being very useful.
I think excluding impositions from being "social constructs" is entirely fair. It makes the concept more precise and hones in on the construction aspect. I suppose the problem with this is that it problematizes the argument that race is a social construct, as it may be more precise to say that it is a wildly inaccurate and arbitrary categorization. I think this has the advantage of marking race as an illegitimate category, but it doesn't take into account the way identity is constructed through human interaction or how the category itself affects our collective behavior and in turn shapes reality.
Gender is interesting because it dodges this paradox by being defined as a pure social construction. Sex differences are massive when compared to racial differences, but race doesn't have a companion phrase that refers purely to social constructivism like gender. Maybe white supremacy and racial stereotypes are social constructs, while race itself is more of a faulty categorization? Maybe race is the social construct companion to genetics? I don't know, I'd have to think more about it.
When I included leukemia in the article, it was under the framework that it and cancer in general actually refer to a wide variety of causes, symptoms, and potential cures. I've seen a lot of people complain that the phrase "cure for cancer" is meaningless because it refers to such a vast array of different diseases that will require vastly different cures. So, it's a bit of an arbitrary category, but if we're going to be precise and say that social constructs refer to things beyond mere labels that are invented by humans, it's clearly not one.
Leukemia and mental illnesses could potentially be "solved", i.e. we may over time develop more sophisticated and useful ways to categorize them to the point they becomes less and less arbitrary. Maybe race is similar: it's already medically helpful to think about people in terms of their genetics, and in the future we may categorize people into "races" based on how prone they are to sickle cell or lou-gehrig's disease or whatever. I'd imagine those categories wouldn't have very much social meaning though. As far as usage goes, social meaning seems to be a major determiner in whether or not something gets called a social construct.
I remember reading part of a manifesto on Black Anarchism and thinking it was kind of paradoxical. I'm told that my job as a white ally is to abolish whiteness, but wouldn't that implicitly abolish blackness and therefore black anarchism? Is the purpose of this political ideology to abolish itself? I suppose it reflects the paradox behind race: you don't necessarily want to identify with it too much but society doesn't really let you forget it either.
I've noticed a tendency among certain people in my personal life and online to push for what I consider to be leftist white exceptionalism. White people are exceptionally evil, they need to feel ashamed for all of their genetic and cultural heritage, and if you push back on any of this you're a racist. This viewpoint is in direct opposition to the idea that humanity is universal and race ought to be abolished. I admit a certain responsibility for changing a system that benefits me at the cost of other people, but I cannot bring myself to believe in this sins of the father hereditary guilt stuff. I don't understand how I'm supposed to abolish whiteness at the same time it defines my moral worth and who I am as a human being.