Greetings,
1. Neither, as they are both biologically-based - ie, gender is a social-construct based on sex, it is not a
purely "social construct"
[The first criterion listed in the definition of
anti-feminism is a fallacy as it presupposes that "social constructs" have no basis in Nature (biology)];
2. Anger is just another form of fear - how legitimate a role this can provide in politics is debatable;
3. Equally, the moral privilege of the
status quo is debatable;
4. The quote presupposes that there is such a thing as libertarian "free will" - there is no evidence that that is the case;
5. If the term "disorders" refers to the clinically-defined term, then we can learn quite a lot;
6. Again, this presupposes "free will". Emotions
are already the basis for our behaviour;
7. As no definition of "higher order" has been provided, this is a difficult question to answer;
8. Not sure if this question is looking for a technical - ie, behavioural - analysis or not. As we're social animals, being able to maintain social networks requires us to "repair" damaged social relationships - "apologies" is the term for part of this process;
9. Naturalism is itself a epistemology that "has been" (is!) naturalised. Perhaps a more pertinent question would be, "Is Naturalism a better epistemology than (non-naturalistic) others?";
10. Yes: the history of ideological - including religious - disagreements, and even wars, is ample evidence that this is the case!
Kindest regards,
James