Ha. You're using race and color interchangeably. You know very well I mean the distinct genetic groups. Just like how males and females are genetically different. They're both humans, so what causes one to become a woman? Female anatomy vs male anatomy. Arguing semantics won't get you anywhere here, you're being purposely obtuse. I understand that two people of the same race can be more genetically different than two people of different races. People are people. But there are quite obvious differences in skin color, skeletal structure and other things. Rather than continue your word definition game how about this Forensic anthropologists determine the ancestry of a skeleton by examining the morphology, or shape, of the skull and by taking measurements of the skull vault (cavity) and face. By comparing these results with data from populations worldwide, scientists can evaluate that individual's relationship to a world group. I guess we'll call them world groups rather than races. Six in one hand. And as a last point, I agree with your original reply to me. Black people should be treated just like white or Asian people, similar to how all men should be simply treated as men.
Democrats are no longer the "party of science." Unless it's fake science, like the planet is going to explode in 5 years if we don't pass cap and trade. You can't have a genuine conversation about science with a Democrat anymore.
He's going to reply with a canned statement of there being no genetic basis for race. But then how can an anthropologist tell a murder victim was a black female, for example? I guess her skeleton is just socially different than a white males.
I just posted articles from scientists, anthropologists, and psychologists saying that race is a social construct, not a biological reality. Now, I'm going to post a press release from the leading medical association in the country saying the same: New AMA policies recognize race as a social, not biological, construct But I'm the one "being purposefully obtuse"? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. P.S. You are the person who pointed to color. I asked you to explain how color determines race. You can't do so because there is no possible way to do it. Why? Because race is a social construct. It's how people with white-passing skin can still be Black and people with relatively dark skin can still be white. How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News A landmark 2002 study by Stanford scientists examined the question of human diversity by looking at the distribution across seven major geographical regions of 4,000 alleles. Alleles are the different “flavors” of a gene. For instance, all humans have the same genes that code for hair: the different alleles are why hair comes in all types of colors and textures. In the Stanford study, over 92% of alleles were found in two or more regions, and almost half of the alleles studied were present in all seven major geographical regions. The observation that the vast majority of the alleles were shared over multiple regions, or even throughout the entire world, points to the fundamental similarity of all people around the world—an idea that has been supported by many other studies (Figure 1B). If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B). Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other (Figure 2).
They use ancestry estimation and then attribute it to a racial group based on that ancestry. But there's a debate going on now among anthropologists whether they should reconsider that approach and how accurate it is. Forensic anthropologists can try to identify a person’s race from a skull. Should they?
It is an example of how gender and biological sex are not nearly as simple as you are trying to make it with your discussion of "weiners," to use your word. The gap between transgendered people and third gendered people is largely one based on how a particular society views gender and has incorporated those cases where sex and gender don't coincide. There have been transgendered people documented for thousands of years across cultures. There are also third genders. How many do you need to see to make it non-anecdotal? Not all of them. Females have female anatomy. That is why you called it female anatomy not woman anatomy. Huh? Do you think there aren't sex trafficked men? Or that you can't sex traffic men? Such a strange claim.
Consider for a moment the possibility, or perhaps even certainty, that you have bought into the pretense as evidenced by your conforming to an overlooked aspect of the pronoun confusion. The long standing rules of grammatical tense have been jettisoned and the language of personal pronouns has been blurred with the disappearance of distinct singular gender designations. His for he and hers for she - banished for the blanket blur of the plural pronouns - they. they're, their and them.
I see our local grammar police clocked in for duty. You don't have kids. You're the one that has no skin in game
Can you point me to a Transgender StoryTime? I’ve not heard of one but it’s possible I guess. Are you also misunderstanding transgender and drag queens? Seems to be a common problem amongst right wingers.
You’re unlikely to realize how entertaining you libbies can be. Love my morning coffee and my early morning HOA meetings in TH. Go on…
