here's a thought.

ren wrote: 1.4 Biology A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies:

I normally don't like Wikpedia, because it's crowd-edited, but since it does require citations anywhere they're necessary, I often use it as a source from which to gather more sources.

As such, let's cross-reference:

Race (biology) wrote: In biological classification, a race is an informal taxonomic rank, below the level of a species. It is used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.

Races may be distinct phenotypic populations within the same species, or they may be defined in other ways. The term is also used for domesticated animals, see landrace.

Races are defined according to any identifiable characteristic, and also by gene frequencies. "Race differences are relative, not absolute".

Race (human classification) wrote: Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical traits. Such use promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomiesthat define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.

What this tells me is that your notion of biological race is an informal, and thereby unofficial, taxonomic grouping, and that (again) what you seem to be talking about is social race, which is kind of an extremely subjective thing, something defined in relation to one's own ethnicity.


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


Now, as Biology is a hard science, and they typically do not fall prey to subjectivity, so that leads me (yet again) to conclude that since "race" is an informal taxonomical category in which your lovely Oxford defenition prefentializes subspecies, and since all known living humans belong to the same subspecies, we must consider that "biological race" is something that humans have exempted themselves from since the 1700s, and therefore that this term is more appropriately applied to non-human living organisms.

But please, feel free to drag this discussion out further with another disagreement based on an opinion that adds precious little to the actual meat of the conversation.

Further Reading

Steam as I said before there is indeed no formal classification system for humans. It does not exist, the subject became taboo before geneticists existed. So no, I can't use formal taxonomic terms, THEY DO NOT EXIST. There has never been a proper genetic classsification of humans, the only species that seems exempt. Only very few fields have been studied because they are linked to health issues, and when categories are created they usually carry the name of the particular gene being studied. Why you keep on pushing this on even though there are pretty good grounds for you to have guessed by now that this very probably affects my family is beyond me.
You keep mentioning this social race nonsense, which I consider racist because it links genetic heritage to culture and social status. I have zero interest in it and plan on continuing to have zero interest in it.

Why you seem so worked up about it is beyond understanding. Maybe you ought to read about what "phenotype" actually means, and how genotype is actually part of it.

So that example is not a good example I don't think for gender discrimination of that type being introduced in part by OP, also especially not the breast example specifically, as in western societies female breasts are usually considered private.

Quite a few men only club's had to close up or allow women, but I notice there are women only gym's etc. I always thought it was only religious institutions that were allowed to bypass certain anti-discrimination law. So on reflection 'health' must have an angle in there also.... I do not mind a bit of positive discrimination so long as it's transparent and available to both genders to meet the same types of need.

I consider all parts of my body private, and would normally be pretty pissed off if random people touched me the way a doctor touches my neck, puts stuff in my ears, my mouth, etc. But the way I see it doctors can do it because I trust them as professionals doing professional things. What about putting needles inside people? Isn't that supposed to be a BDSM thing? The same goes for people who have little or no training. Those healthcare assistants havent been through 10 years of medical training and have no PhDs, but still wipe bums for perfectly reasonable reasons and should be respected as such. I mean, if it' all about making the patients feeling comfortable, why don't we always get sexy hot nurses? If sexy barmaids cause patrons to drink more, surely recovery times could be improved by sexy nurses, right? Etc

lol I digress. Men get mammograms also.


Excellent point about the women-only gyms, though apparently women don't like them this much. Those who go to my gym (private health club) often clearly are there to show off. Someone mentioned lululemons in another thread, I swear some people stacked up on those "faulty" transparent ones as they never seem to run out. We have more women than men during the day and some clearly are competing. All of this of course is excellent news for men, as apparently staring at breasts for 10 minutes is just as good for men's health as a 30 minute workout.