It’s not race, it’s geography? But isn’t race also caused by geography? Really, aren’t race and geography one and the same thing? Modern transportation is “rapidly” (compared to evolution) working to erase it, but it still exists as of yet.
So, ovarian cancer isn’t gender based because not all women have it? Your “b.” is much more convincing.
Quite likely it’s another geographical thing at play. But then again, so is race.
How about sunburn? Aren’t caucasions more susceptible to sunburn?
To say that race is meaningless because it doesn’t guarantee knowledge about any one particular individual seems to me as counterintuitive as saying that quantum physics is meaningless because it doesn’t guarantee knowledge about any one particular particle. It’s all about trends. The problem is that people get very uptight about being prejudged based on statistical trends. I’m currently on the fence about the practice, but I don’t automatically think identifying trends is completely valueless.
Of course, I’m beginning to think that the SDMB is populated with people who refuse to accept any concept of trends, whether they be applied to people (race, gender), laws, animals, or what have you.
It gets so extreme that sometimes I feel like if I posted “cakes are sweet” I would get a flurry of responses explaining how all cakes are unique and it is meaningless to attempt to attach the arbitrary label of “sweet” to them.