# If "there's no such thing as race," is there such a thing as gender? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779 "2012-03-05T03:43:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/221 "2012-03-08T05:20:14Z")
The fucking SSADC as a _racial_ marker? Are you _shitting_ me? That proves jack about races - all it proves is that you can divide humanity up into two broad groups - those who are primarily African ( **but are otherwise phenotypically heterogenous** ) and those who aren’t. It’s great support … for the Out of Africa theory. But unless your proposed racial schema is African and Not (i.e. you have a definition of races where Danes, Andaman Islanders and Koreans are all one race, and Ethiopians, Mbuti and !Kung are another) it isn’t _anything_ near what people mean when they say “race”. Is _that_ your proposed definition of race, **Chen**? Strictly African and Other? It would be a … unique take on things, that’s for sure. Seriously - there’s no “scientific” racial scheme in this day and age that can still hope to lump _all_ Sub-saharan Africans as _one_ race and not be laughed out of the laboratory ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/222 "2012-03-08T05:22:29Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > He refers to blacks. As has been pointed out to your side numerous times, American “black” does not map to “Sub-Saharan African” in any way, shape or form. This starts looking like wilful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/223 "2012-03-08T05:28:49Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Discussed at 8:56pm above: “Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and East Asians.” Also, previous [thread on the biological definition of race](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13873340&postcount=332). So you claim that Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and East Asians are morphologically distinct and geologically separte. Good, Finally an answer. > [@](#): > > He refers to blacks. Read from p301 on useful cranio-facial features to distinguish races. For the third time: I didn’t ask where he refers to US Blacks. You claimed he refers to sub-Saharan Africans as morphologically distinct. Where does Gill ever even use the tern sub-Saharan African. > [@](#): > > You asked for morphological differences between these races/populations. I’ve provided you with some that allow correct classification to satisfy the sub-species criteria listed above. No, you have not provided any at all. Gill never refers to any your nominated races. Irish never clams that sub-Saharan Africans are morphologically distinguishable. Irish says that there is a distinct cluster in Sub-Saharan Africa. At no stage does he say that you can classify sub-Saharan Africans based on teeth. I don’t think you have actually read the paper, have you? Now can you answer the questions? What are the morphological features that you can use to distinguish sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and East Asians? Where does Gill refer to sub-Saharan Africans? I’m not asking about whether he refers to US Blacks, defined as such by the perceptions of US law enforcement. Nobody disputes that. But " Blacks as defined as such by the perceptions of US law enforcement" is not in any sense synonymous with “sub-Saharan African”. Where does Gill say that there is a combination of morphological traits that are diagnostic of a sub-Saharan African race? You made these claims about Gill. Now is the time to back them up. You have a rather nasty history of misrepresenting references on these boards, and this yet another example. Whether you do this deliberately to mislead or simply because you lack the ability to comprehend scientific literature I am unsure. But you do it with great regularity, and either way it means that your arguments based on what you claim the literature says are worthless. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/224 "2012-03-08T05:31:56Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Discussed at 8:56pm above: “Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, and East Asians.” So Melanesians and Polynesians are in one race? Where do Australians and Tasmanians fit in? Are Andaman Islanders “Caucasian”? They sure as hell aren’t African. So !Kung Bushmen and Ethiopians are all part of one race? ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/225 "2012-03-08T05:38:49Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Seriously - there’s no “scientific” racial scheme in this day and age that can still hope to lump _all_ Sub-saharan Africans as _one_ race and not be laughed out of the laboratory Indeed, I believe Chuck made that point in the debate about a meaningful definition of race, that I [linked above](http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/). Also as Coyne noted in the link I gave above: > [@](#): > > How many human races are there? > > That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over thirty. Also, specifically on sub-saharans Razib Khan recently [commented.](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/02/the-race-question-are-bonobos-human/#more-15825) > [@](#): > > A more interesting concern is the fact that in most trees non-Africans tend to be on their own branch, while Sub-Saharan Africans tend diversify into distinct basal branches. The question ensues: are Sub-Saharan Africans several distinct races? Using evolutionary history as a measure I would say yes! This is definitely one area where social expectations have led us astray. It turns out that it may be that the Bushmen/non-Bushmen separation is only 1/3 as long ago in the past as the Neanderthal/modern human separation. In fact, the Bushmen may predate, and not be part of, the “Out of Africa” event. Along with the Pygmies and Hadza there seems to be a very ancient differentiation between the agriculturalist and hunter-gatherers in the African continent. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/226 "2012-03-08T05:44:41Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > are Sub-Saharan Africans several distinct races? Using evolutionary history as a measure I would say yes! WTF? He just spent two pages telling us that they were one morphologically distinct race. Does anybody give this poster any credit at all? By this stage I would hope that it is clear that he has no idea what he is talking about. But if anyone in the peanut gallery thinks that he has any credibility at all, let me know. That might make it worth my while to keep debunking this nonsense. But for me personally, he has demonstrated very clearly that his ideas are factually wrong, inconsistent, poorly thought out and based on an complete misrepresentation of the literature. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/227 "2012-03-08T05:45:12Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > “Han Chinese teenagers” is not a race by _anyone_’s definition. On the contrary, there is a great deal of debate on the subject of youth in Asia. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/228 "2012-03-08T05:51:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > For the third time: I didn’t ask where he refers to US Blacks. > . Gill refers to six geographic races. He includes in those “black (negroid) and white (caucasoid)”. My understanding was that negroid in physical anthropology referred to sub saharan africans or those of primarily sub saharan descent. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/229 "2012-03-08T05:54:40Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > WTF? > He just spent two pages telling us that they were one morphologically distinct race. Let’s re-visit what you’ve said: > [@Blake](#): > > So how about you or Mr. Coyne demonstrate that there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, rather than simply asserting that everybody knows to be true. I’ve given you ample evidence from the literature showing there are morphologically different groups that would satisfy the sub species criteria noted above. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/230 "2012-03-08T05:54:55Z")
Let’s talk about Gill for a minute - I do think he gets a little too much stick; his basic thrust is this: For his work, bone morphology maps closely to certain geographical grouping often aligning with some traditional (for the US) “races”. That’s fine, and he freely admits that this is of utility to him and not, say, seriologists: [ [QUOTE=Gill in Nova interview] "So, serologists who work largely with blood factors will tend to see human variation as clinal and races as not a valid construct, while skeletal biologists, particularly forensic anthropologists, will see races as biologically real. " [/QUOTE] ](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html)Good for him to admit his bias. His mistake is in then projecting his functional use of geographic population groups, which only map to “race” because of the US-centric racial filter, into the social sphere: [QUOTE=Gill in Nova interview] The common person on the street who sees only a person’s skin color, hair form, and face shape will also tend to see races as biologically real. They are not incorrect. [/QUOTE] Yes, Gill, they are, because they aren’t trained scientists working in specific sub-fields on specific sub-populations. They don’t get to ignore entire racial populations (as Gill does whole population groups like Melanesian - Gill, p296) because they are outside the scope of study or have insufficient data. Nope, they’re going to call that New Caledonian “black” (I mean, [look at their neat 'fros](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Two_Kanak_%28Canaque%29_warriors_posing_with_penis_gourds_and_spears,_New_Caledonia.jpg)!) which makes a mockery of any pretence to consistency or reality to morphology-based “races” as scientific. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/231 "2012-03-08T06:02:15Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Also, specifically on sub-saharans Razib Khan recently commented. > > > [@](#): > > > > […snip…]are Sub-Saharan Africans several distinct races? Using evolutionary history as a measure I would say yes![…snip…] So you were wrong to say “Sub-Saharan African” is the same as “Black”, weren’t you? Doesn’t that make you stop and wonder what else you might be wrong about on race? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/232 "2012-03-08T06:04:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > On the contrary, there is a great deal of debate on the subject of youth in Asia. Quiet, you! Don’t make me get my pun-stick… ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/233 "2012-03-08T06:45:00Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Gill refers to six geographic races. He includes in those “black (negroid) and white (caucasoid)”. My understanding was that negroid in physical anthropology referred to sub saharan africans or those of primarily sub saharan descent. So you admit that you don’t understand your own references. That’s good enough for me. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/234 "2012-03-08T06:53:10Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I’ve given you ample evidence from the literature showing there are morphologically different groups that would satisfy the sub species criteria noted above. No, you haven’t provided even one. As we’ve noted, you utterly misrepresented Gill. You claimed that gill said that there there were morphological traits traits that are diagnostic of sub-Saharan Africans. Gill in fact never even used the term sub-Saharan African, and he specifically sated that there are no morphological traits traits or combination of morphological traits that are diagnostic of any race. I dn;t know whether the8i blatant misrepresenation was deliberate, or because you can;t understand what Gill clearly wrionte, but either way it is enough to uttelry discredit you. You quote snippets of Irish, but Irish likewise never clams that sub-Saharan Africans are morphologically distinguishable. Irish says that there is a distinct cluster in Sub-Saharan Africa. At no stage does he say that you can classify sub-Saharan Africans based on teeth. So no, you have never shown evidence showing there are morphologically different groups that would satisfy the sub species criteria. What you have shown is that you are utterly incapable of accurately representing the literature, either dliberately or due to an inability to understand it. You no longer have any credibility on this issue Chen. There is simply no reason to believe that you have any idea what the literature says. And if you so clearly don’t understand the literature, what the hell makes you think you have any idea what you are talking about? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/235 "2012-03-08T06:57:31Z")
Back to Gill: it should be noted, for those following along, that Gill is still a little behind the state of the art when it comes to craniofacial studies. Both the work of González-José & Perez _et al_ on environmental factors influencing morphology, as well as work on the interdependence of various skull morphological features, has moved the whole field far forward in the last decade. Or take the work of [Strauss and Hubbe](http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staff/strauss/pdf/Strauss%20and%20Hubbe%202010%20-%20Craniometrics%20similarities%20within%20and%20between%20human%20populations.pdf)(pdf): > [@](#): > > Our results also have implications for the discussion about the existence of > races in the human species from the phenotypic point of view because they sup- > port the notion of an absence of discrete biological groups. Despite the geographic > structuring of morphological variation previously reported in other studies and the > influence of diversifying selection associated with cold climate in some craniofa- > cial dimensions, the results presented here demonstrate that roughly one-third of > the pairs of individuals within a population are more different than pairs of indi- > viduals between populations. This indicates that cranial morphology is less able to > identify nonclinal variations among populations (which would be in accordance > with the existence of biological races in the human species) than molecular data > are, which, in contrast to cranial traits, can show null dissimilarity fractions if > enough loci are considered. So: racial craniometrics is hardly settled science. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/236 "2012-03-08T08:02:27Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > As we’ve noted, you utterly misrepresented Gill. You claimed that gill said that there there were morphological traits traits that are diagnostic of sub-Saharan Africans. Gill in fact never even used the term sub-Saharan African, and he specifically sated that there are no morphological traits traits or combination of morphological traits that are diagnostic of any race. I dn;t know whether the8i blatant misrepresenation was deliberate, or because you can;t understand what Gill clearly wrionte, but either way it is enough to uttelry discredit you. > So no, you have never shown evidence showing there are morphologically different groups that would satisfy the sub species criteria. What you have shown is that you are utterly incapable of accurately representing the literature, either dliberately or due to an inability to understand it. 1. I explained to you above - Gill refers to “black (negroid” and white (caucasoid). Negroid refers to those from [sub saharan africa](http://negroid.askdefine.com/). 2. You need to read Gill again. I think the quote you keep going back to reflects my point above: Your objection appears to be more with the subspecies/race concept itself. As Gill notes, races are not discrete or absolute conditions that exist in nature. This is also a point made by Sesardic above (whose paper and points regarding morphological features you have studiously ignored). As noted above - he goes through various morphological features that can be used to assign people with high confidence to the major geographic racial groups. In term of a combination of morphological traits that are diagnostic of race, let me quote Gill again (I’ll highlight some points you overlooked): > [@](#): > > **Homo sapiens, as one of the most successful of all species, has evolved into many morphologically distinct populations.** In the course of human existence, as people from widely separated geographical areas have come more and more into contact with one another, racial identity has become a part of personal identify. And so, in contemporary society race as a part of an individuals personal record just as much as sex, age, height or body weight. Identification of ancestry from human skeletal remains has therefore become an important contribution of forensic anthropologists to the records-screening process in medico legal identification. > \*\* > A great number of physical characteristics of the human skeleton have been found to be useful in assessing racial affinities. The greatest number of these traits, and the best ones for determination of race, are craniofacial characteristics, many of which are from the mid facial skeleton (nose, mouth, cheekbones).\*\* > > All traits should be considered in the evaluation of an unknown specimen. Yet no single trait or even combination of traits can be considered completely diagnostic of race. Not only do many more hybrid conditions exist within Homo sapiens than are defined by society (or even physical anthropologists), but race itself is simply not a qualititative or discrete condition in nature. By definition, race is quantitative. **Perfection can never be attained in defining or diagnosing a condition that does not exist in absolute form.** 1. You’ve ignored Sesardic, not to mention the Howell’s data referred to by Releford. Why is that? 2. What is your definition of race & sub-species. Above you suggested you accepted these exist in other species. Do you accept the Mayr & O’Brien approach set out above? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/237 "2012-03-08T08:27:17Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > 1. I explained to you above - Gill refers to “black (negroid” and white (caucasoid). Negroid refers to those from [sub saharan africa](http://negroid.askdefine.com/). No, once again you are blatantly misrepresenting Gill, who states explicitly that he us using “Racial taxa such as ‘Black’” that have “clear meaning to.. law enforcement personnel” within the US because as long as society perceives race as discrete forensic anthropologists are forced to communicate in those terms. At no stage does Gill suggest, state, imply or even insinuate that “Black” refers to sub-Saharan Africans. Or that there are morphological traits that are diagnostic of a Black race. Those are claims that you simply made you out of whole cloth. Anybody who wants to read the article can see where Gioll states that his usage of “Black” is a social convention that has been forced on scientists because it has use to law enforcement. Everyone can red where he disavows the existence of a discrete Black race. Everyone can see that he never implies that Black equates to “Sub Saharan African”. You are misrepresenting the reference in the most egregious fashion. If you were not doing so you would be able to better than simply assert that Gill equates “Black” with “sub-Saharan African” when Gill himself states quite clearly that he is using “Racial taxa such as “Black”” that have “clear meaning to.. law enforcement personnel”. do yo societal constraints. > [@](#): > > As noted above - he goes through various morphological features that can be used to assign people with high confidence to the major geographic racial groups. No, he does not, as we have already explained to you multiple times. All you do by repeatedly misquoting Gill and Irish is to destroy what tiny shred of credibility you may have. There are accusations I am forbidden to make in this forum, but I am sure you know very well what people are thinking of you when you repeatedly and knowingly misrepresent the references. As such there is little that I need to do to utterly discredit you. You have already done that to yourself. All I need to do is keep highlighting the way that you knowingly and repeatedly misrepresent the references. So please, keep doing so. While you do there is no chance at all that anybody is going to accept the ignorance that you spout, and that is good. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/238 "2012-03-08T10:11:54Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > Negroid refers to those from [sub saharan africa](http://negroid.askdefine.com/). …and is a stupid, outdated classification that bears no relation to actual geographic populations. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/239 "2012-03-08T10:14:47Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > As noted above - he goes through various morphological features that can be used to assign people with high confidence to the major geographic racial groups. [Not such high confidence](https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:PxMo9X139Q8J:wysinger.homestead.com/forensic.pdf+&hl=en&gl=za&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShesf4WDEbNq71wxhInRe6nSkVHP1ODMonsdMSe_T911JyYhfSF84EPjS3I7LNpUxm-Ls2XLxG1ji6tgDpHPnNdFDduv-byUUd6Mu7RI4DZLUfQoCVmlUmVhzRhGX29E_O94ZgE&sig=AHIEtbSOJUpfX01ft6S7ZdhtwCTVlYKBFw), it turns out. I’ll say it again: Gill’s work is on a highly filtered subset of human populations. That he finds groupings there is no surprise. Doesn’t make the groupings significant in general application. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/240 "2012-03-08T11:06:18Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I am genuinely surprised. If it’s going to take too much effort, don’t bother hunting it down, since it will hardly prove anything either way, but I am surprised The question is whether or not you are seriously skeptical. > [@](#): > > Assuming that this is a statutory region, then yes, It will defined as the area defined within a polygon made up of a series of co-ordinates. As such it is perfectly objective. If it’s an informal designation then, no. > > Definitely not, unless you define the term very precisely. Worms include members of at least 15 different phyla, including vertebrates and arthropods. There’s no commonality at all between them, whether evolutionary, anatomical or physiological. > > Definitely not, unless you define the term very precisely. > > Definitely not, unless you define the term very precisely. > > Definitely not, unless you define the term very precisely. So if I provide precise, objective definitions for racial categories, you will accept that race is scientifically valid? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779.md?page=13)