# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/441 "2012-03-16T22:44:26Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > What can I say? I guess what I said before. To judge significance we need a metric.) Let me be absolutely papa smurfly clear about this. I have argued that (morphological etc.) differences between my populations are “significant” as judged using two independent metrics: (1) correct classification \> 75% and (2) a medium to large effect size for the differences mentioned. These were separate points, not to be confused. (1), I argue, is relevant to taxonomic classification. (2), I argue, is relevant to our every day understanding of differences. When I say that ‘differences’ are ‘significant,’ I don’t mean anything else. Please mind the context of my statements. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/442 "2012-03-16T23:07:30Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > That’s a really strong statement and if one is going to dismiss a respected academic speaking on the subject for which he’s a well-regarded expert it’s perfectly legitimate to expect one to provide fairly compelling evidence to back up such an assertion. The statement under discussion concerned the correlation between IQ and brain size. Cohen’s statement, quoted, was moronic. By the time he wrote it, the body of evidence supporting Sarich’s claim was overwhelming. The statement also misrepresented Saricb; contrary to what was said, Sairch did present evidence for the within population correlation. I’m not sure why you think Cohen is a well-regarded expert in psychology or neurology. Those are the subjects of relevance. Nor am I sure why you think that this issue is worth pursuing. You are spending an inordinate amount of time on it. Hence my statement. Don’t bother posting about this again. I’m not going to reply. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2012, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/443 "2012-03-16T23:30:00Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > (1) Could you address the issue of ‘unique natural histories.’ I claimed that my populations meet this criteria. Do you still disagree? How many times can I address this? No, they do not, as I just explained , the term “natural history” can’t even be applied to humans in any way that makes sense. > [@](#): > > (2) I would argue that “red-shirt-wearers” is a scientifically meaningful class – and therefore a scientifically meaningful term – even though its not a taxonomic valid class or a biologically real class. If you are conceding that race is neither taxonomically valid class nor biologically real, then we really don’t have anything to discuss. This thread asked why race is considered not tobe real, while sex is. And the answer is that sex is biologically real and race is not. > [@](#): > > Craniometric differences do map onto my races. No they do not, as we have already shown. > [@](#): > > I have been very clear about my point. Refer back to (3). And, as I noted above, between Gorilla subspecies [the craniometric variation is also greater within than between](http://books.google.com/books?id=vhoRdbTrjc8C&pg=PA1058&lpg=PA1058&dq=craniometric+FST+gorilla&source=bl&ots=iI8BOFXqrX&sig=xfYmG38cJbxn2ZZHtLSimF_pkhw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tVViT8fhCJGTtwfKu-D1Bw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=craniometric%20FST%20gorilla&f=false). This between/within issue is not relevant here. WTF? That reference states that \*\*craniometric variation provides no support for classifying _Gorilla groups as subspecies_. And it provides no support precisely **because the variation between putative subspecies is less than that found within the subspecies** It goes on to say that the the only reason the subspecies are considered valid is because the **_Gorilla_ genetic data show a much deeper divsion between the subspecies than the craniometric data** , and it is the genetic data that provides evidence for subspeciation, not the craniometric data, which is utterly useless for subspecies classification. Compare that to the human situation. **Craniometric variation provides no support classifying human groups as subspecies precisely because the variation between putative subspecies is less than that found within the subspecies.** For exactly the same reason that craniometric data do not support splitting Gorilla groups into subspecies, it also does not support splitting human groups into subspecies But the very data that you introduced shows that **human genetic data show a shallower division between the subspecies than the craniometric data.** Do you even bother to read these references that you introduce? Or do you just not understand them? Because they are totally demolishing your position. You own references state quite clearly that is craniometric variation is less between two groups than within those groups, this provides no support classifying groups as subspecies. And the variation between your putative races is an order of magnitude less than the variation within them. Your own reference says that groups can only be classified as subspecies if the genetic variation is higher than that of the cranionmetric. And your own data, the stuff that you introduced, shows quite clearly that the genetic variation between your races is less than the fund by craniometrics. I thank you for humoring me by providing evidence that utterly demolishes our own position. Keep it up. > [@](#): > > To judge significance we need a metric. When it comes to ‘significant’ for subspecies classification, one metric is correct assignment into populations based on traits. Which you cannot do for humans. You can correctly assign humans to population \*only \*when the population is purely defined as “the population that possess this trait”. Such a classification of course is perfectly self-referential. The population shares no other characteristics at all aside from “possesses this trait”. The population does not share any common geography, genetics, ancestry or morphology. > [@](#): > > So, if I’m interpreting this correctly, discriminate analysis is used to classify members into groups and if more than 75% of members can be correctly classified, the groups can be called subspecies. Right? Wrong. You are misinterpreting wildly. The authors of the study you just cited state specifically that “analytic methods should reveal subtle and consistent morphological differences among” groups of primates solely because they are species, and “ **species are genetically independent** ”. That is what the authors say. Quite explicitly. The **analysis only works for species because species are genetically independent**. Since even you won’t argue that Black people are a separate race that are genetically incapable of breeding with you Whites, this is yet another example of where your reference utterly destroys your own argument. You haven’t actually read that paper have you? Like all the rest of your cites, you are just pulling them off Google based on a few keywords, without actually reading them, or even having access to the full text. This is why you keep presenting references that demolish your own position, isn’t it? But hey, keep it up. When your own references state clearly that your position is rubbish, it works even better than when we do it. > [@](#): > > Well, this is where the human craniometric data comes in. I forget, which craniometric data is this? The craniometric data that **your own reference says does not provide any support for subspecies classification**? Or the craniometric data that says that t **here is an order of magnitude more variation within races than between them**? Or the craniometric data that says that, **as tiny as the genetic variationis between races, the phycial variation manages to be even smaller**? Is one of those the craniometric data that comes in now? 😃 Gee, I sure am getting roasted in this thread, even worse than in the last one. If you keep posting references that directly contradict your argument, I won’t have anyhting to do, and that sure roasts me. Keep up the good work Chuck. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/444 "2012-03-17T00:02:06Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > The statement under discussion concerned the correlation between IQ and brain size. Cohen’s statement, quoted, was moronic. By the time he wrote it, the body of evidence supporting Sarich’s claim was overwhelming. The statement also misrepresented Saricb; contrary to what was said, Sairch did present evidence for the within population correlation. I’m not sure why you think Cohen is a well-regarded expert in psychology or neurology. Those are the subjects of relevance. Nor am I sure why you think that this issue is worth pursuing. You are spending an inordinate amount of time on it. Hence my statement. No, Cohen rather accurately described what a silly claim Sarich made. > [@](#): > > The authors simply postulate without evidence that brain size correlates with intelligence in modern populations, despite common statements to the contrary, on the basis that such a correlation clearly does exist in a very crude way in the sequence of our prehistoric ancestors. But the two points are not comparable. Different contemporary brain sizes reflect variance within a population; prehistoric samples are about changes across populations over very large amounts of time during which almost nothing is known about variance within populations. > **The correlation of “race” and measured IQ with individual or international wealth and success that they note is probably correct-- but is hardly indicative of the direction of cause. Given what we know of the effects of poverty and social environments on IQ, the causality they imply is very probably backward.** > I picked up the book genuinely interested in what evidence a man of the Sarich’ stature might bring to the debate, and how it might change my own perception of the subject. **I was frankly concerned that the authors might provide evidence that would seriously challenge my own beliefs about both race and IQ. But by the end I was laughing at the ineptitude of the argument.** I find it astonishing and appalling that such an inherently silly book has gotten the positive attention it has; and I am very bitter that such a poor effort would again raise the racist specter of Black inferiority. And judging by some popular reviews it has done just that. In fact, in your post where you rather foolishly accused him of being “a moron”, the only evidence you presented was an article by Rushton(a well-known racist crank) a letter to the editor, and an article that wasn’t a university publication. Anyway the gist of your argument is that Cohen is “a moron” because he stripped away a myth I like to believe in. Finally, you didn’t answer my question. What exactly are your credentials to justify calling a distinguished professor “a moron”? Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/445 "2012-03-17T01:03:36Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > In fact, in your post where you rather foolishly accused him of being “a moron”, the only evidence you presented was an article by Rushton(a well-known racist crank) a letter to the editor, and an article that wasn’t a university publication. If you’re going to get tetchy about someone describing Cohen’s comment as moronic you should probably avoid accusing other academics of being “cranks”. Especially when they’ve recently been published on the subject in the [International Journal of Neuroscience](http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2009%20Int%20J%20Neuroscience.pdf). In any case, the relationship between brain size and cognitive ability is not really in dispute. See Yale’s [Jeremy Gray & UCLA neuroscientist Paul Thompson’s paper in Nature](http://www.yale.edu/scan/GT_2004_NRN.pdf). And there is a [relationship between genetic variations and brain volume](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090818130559.htm). **Chuck** , have you seen this presentation by [Nicholas Schork](http://www.imaginggenetics.uci.edu/presentations/2011/Schork.pdf)? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/446 "2012-03-17T01:34:55Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > If you’re going to get tetchy about someone describing Cohen’s comment as moronic you should probably avoid accusing other academics of being “cranks”. Especially when they’ve recently been published on the subject in the [International Journal of Neuroscience](http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2009%20Int%20J%20Neuroscience.pdf). Publication does not translate into automatic support. > **[J. Philippe Rushton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton)** > > John Philippe Rushton (December 3, 1943 – October 2, 2012) was a Canadian psychologist and author. He taught at the University of Western Ontario until the early 1990s, and became known to the general public during the 1980s and 1990s for promoting anti-Black racism through his widely discredited research on race and intelligence, race and crime, and other purported racial correlations. > Rushton's work has been heavily criticized by the scientific community for the poor quality of its research,... > [@](#): > > Since 2002, Rushton has been the president of the Pioneer Fund. Tax records from 2000 show in that year that his Charles Darwin Research Institute was awarded $473,835, or 73% of the fund’s total grants that year.[53] The Southern Poverty Law Center, an American civil rights organization, characterizes the Pioneer Fund as a hate group.[54][55] Rushton has spoken on eugenics several times at conferences of the American Renaissance magazine, a monthly racialist magazine, in which he has also published a number of general articles.[56] > > Rushton has published articles on the website VDARE, which advocates reduced immigration into the United States. Stefan Kühl wrote in his book, The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism (2002), that Rushton was part of the revival in the 1980s of public interest in scientific racism.[57] > > William H. Tucker, a professor of psychology who writes histories of scientific racism, noted in 2002: > > > [@](#): > > > > Rushton has not only contributed to American Renaissance publications and graced their conferences with his presence but also offered praise and support for the “scholarly” work on racial differences of Henry Garrett, who spent the last two decades of his life opposing the extension of the Constitution to blacks on the basis that the “normal” black resembled a European after frontal lobotomy. Informed of Garrett’s assertion that blacks were not entitled to equality because their “ancestors were … savages in an African jungle,” Rushton dismissed the observation as quoted “selectively from Garrett’s writing”, finding nothing opprobrious in such sentiments because the leader of the scientific opposition to civil rights had made other statements about black inferiority that were, according to Rushton, “quite objective in tone and backed by standard social science evidence.” Quite apart from the questionable logic in defending a blatant call to deprive citizens of their rights by citing Garrett’s less offensive writing—as if it were evidence of Ted Bundy’s innocence that there were some women he had met and not killed—there was no sense on Rushton’s part that all of Garrett’s assertions, whether or not “objective,” were utterly irrelevant to constitutional guarantees, which are not predicated on scientific demonstrations of intellectual equality.[58] > > In 2005 Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article noting that Rushton has ignored evidence that fails to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy. He has not changed his position on this matter for 30 years.[59] Rushton replied in the same issue of the journal.[60] ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/447 "2012-03-17T01:59:40Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > If you’re going to get tetchy about someone describing Cohen’s comment as moronic you should probably avoid accusing other academics of being “cranks”. Rushton was reprimanded for approaching people at a shopping mall and asking them how large their penises were and how far they could ejaculate. Doesn’t that sound like someone who is a crank? He has long insisted that men are more intelligent than women and also for several decades he’s had a really weird fetish about penises insisting that there’s an inverse correlation between “penis size and brain size” and obsessively trying to prove that “blacks” have larger penises than “whites” while “Orientals” have smaller penises than “whites”. So Chen, what do you think? Do you believe that “Orientals” have smaller penises than “whites”? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/448 "2012-03-17T05:33:31Z")
Hey, **Chen**. You claimed that Indians and Lebanese immigrants living in NZ are not considered to be Caucasian? Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary claim? Or are you, yet again, making shit up? This is the second time i have asked this question. And once again, I encourage this behaviour in you. The past 4 pages of this thread are now filled with evidence of you squirming away form these ridiculous claims that you have made. There is no better evidence of how ridiculous your position is than to watch you being hounded for evidence for your claims, and being unable to provide any. Keep it up. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/449 "2012-03-17T05:41:27Z")
@ **Ibn Warraq** I think your answer sums up part of the problem. You see these things as _personal_ and whether they cause offense. If it does, then you presumably consider it must be wrong. The data is value neutral. We need to put our priors to one side. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/450 "2012-03-17T06:01:31Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > @ **Ibn Warraq** > > I think your answer sums up part of the problem. You see these things as _personal_ and whether they cause offense. If it does, then you presumably consider it must be wrong. The data is value neutral. We need to put our priors to one side. Ok, so then do you think that “Orientals” have extremely small penises since Rushton insists that they do? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2012, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/451 "2012-03-17T06:18:03Z")
Hey, **Chen**. You claimed that Indians and Lebanese immigrants living in NZ are not considered to be Caucasian? Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary claim? Or are you, yet again, making shit up? This is the third time i have asked this question. And once again, I encourage this behaviour in you. The past 4 pages of this thread are now filled with evidence of you squirming away form these ridiculous claims that you have made. There is no better evidence of how ridiculous your position is than to watch you being hounded for evidence for your claims, and being unable to provide any. Keep it up. ---
**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 17, 2012, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/452 "2012-03-17T07:10:43Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > (1) Biological reality. > > “Biologically real,” at least as the term is used in the philosophy of science, isn’t the same as “being a valid taxonomic group according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.” [A while ago, I pointed to a cladistic defense of the race concept.](http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/cladistic-concept-of-race.pdf) Here the ‘biological reality’ of race was being defended, not the taxonomic validity, at least by the International Code, of the classification. I’m sorry, no. When the argument is about whether race is a valid **biological classification scheme** , then _taxonomic_ validity is the _entirety_ of the biological reality to be considered. > [@](#): > > My point here is only that the concepts “biologically real” and “taxonomically valid” are not equivalent. They are if you’re proposing a classification scheme. > [@](#): > > (2) Piddly differences. > > Come on. > > [QUOTE[There are several ways to distinguish one tiger subspecies from another. However, in some cases the differences are very subtle. Even tiger biologists cannot always say for certain to which subspecies a particular tiger belongs simply by looking at its appearance. > > The main differences are in size, color, and coat] > ([minnesotazoo.org](http://www.minnesotazoo.org/education/TICadventures/handbook/b4.htm#Color)). a) You know there’s a difference between how tiger subspecies are _defined_ and how they are _distinguished_, right? _Your own cite_ says these visual differences are so subtle as to not work _even for professionals_. So clearly it _isn’t_ just piddly morphological differences - geographic range restrictions, for example, play a significant role in deciding things as well. And that’s not even at a continental level - there were no barriers to mainland tigers geographically. b) Many of those tiger subspecies were defined last century or earlier. They didn’t _have_ genetics then. Lately, people haven’t been so sure the _traditional_ tiger classification scheme is valid in light of genetics- see e.g. [Mazak _et al_](http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/tiger%20SEAsia%20Mazak.pdf). c) _Doesn’t_ address why the _much greater variation_ isn’t used as a schema in e.g cats - could it be that there’s more to the classification schema than just the visuals? We can’t tell from your cite, as you linked to a zoo, not a taxonomic paper. ---
**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 17, 2012, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/453 "2012-03-17T07:15:00Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > Some other comments: > > (3) Breed. > > You say: “The difference is that “breed” isn’t a meaningful scientific term.” > > I think you mean “Isn’t a meaningful taxonomic term.” For the purposes of a debate on classifying human subspecies, the terms are interchangeable. As to the rest, that’s been dealt with _ad nauseum_. Yes, you’ll find differences between traditional continental populations. No, you won’t find differences that _consistently_ match. ---
**Author:** ![Whambulance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@Whambulance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whambulance)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/454 "2012-03-18T07:31:41Z")
Differences in real world performance based on race tend to be negligible, but differences based on gender can be profound. Some women are capable of carrying 100 lbs of cold-weather gear load in the military for instance, but can they carry it 15 to 20 miles when necessary? Not likely. In contrast there are certain combat roles that women have been shown to handle far better than their male counterparts, mostly relating to certain kinds of stress - and they should populate those roles with the best candidates i.e., women. There should be nothing wrong with using science and statistics as a predicate of performance as opposed to political correctness. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/455 "2012-03-18T16:06:26Z")
> [@Whambulance](#): > > Differences in real world performance based on race tend to be negligible, but differences based on gender can be profound. Well I think you need to be a bit more specific about what you mean by “negligible” and “profound.” Consider a small difference in the distribution of some characteristic between two different groups. On an individual level, it may be very difficult to detect. But in a population of billions of people, it could have a very big impact at the highest levels of achievement. > [@](#): > > There should be nothing wrong with using science and statistics as a predicate of performance as opposed to political correctness. I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/456 "2012-03-19T21:22:18Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Consider a small difference in the distribution of some characteristic between two different groups. On an individual level, it may be very difficult to detect. But in a population of billions of people, it could have a very big impact at the highest levels of achievement. Which in no way demonstrates the validity of the group. If I divided people into groups based upon the colour of shirt that they are wearing today, there is certain to be a small difference between the groups that, as you put it, could have a very big impact at the highest levels of achievement. That doesn’t make “wore a blue shirt on March 19” a biologically valid grouping. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/457 "2012-03-19T22:08:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m sorry, no. I had a long reply, but it didn’t post. I’m not going to rewrite it. I’ll just summarize. (a) “Taxonomic validity” is not equivalent to “biological reality,” at least given how philosophers of science use the latter term. If we are going to use the term differently, then let’s clarify what we mean. (b) You can look up the diagnostic criteria for tigers yourself (e.g.," P.t.corbetti, cranium size somewhat smaller than the nominate form P.t.tigris, with a relatively darker ground coloration and more numerous, rather short, narrow and rarely doubled stripes.") I’m not sure what you mean by “piddly differences” – do you mean that these types of differences are piddly? Or do you mean that the magnitude of differences are piddly when it comes to humans? ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/458 "2012-03-19T22:44:11Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Which in no way demonstrates the validity of the group. > > If I divided people into groups based upon the colour of shirt that they are wearing today, there is certain to be a small difference between the groups that, as you put it, could have a very big impact at the highest levels of achievement. > > That doesn’t make “wore a blue shirt on March 19” a biologically valid grouping. Blake, You agree that, on average, there could be socially important congenital differences between “blue shirt wearers” and, say, “pink shirt wearers” – or “Bra-wearers” and “non-Bra-wearers,” right? And you agree that the differences between these classes would be biologically real, right? Could we then say that these classes, in the instance that there are biologically real differences between them, have biological reality? Or does “having biological reality” mean “being biologically real”? I’m trying to figure out how we are using these terms and phrases. By your terminology, are sexes biological valid groupings? What about genders? If sexes aren’t ‘biological valid groupings,’ how would you characterize them? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/459 "2012-03-19T23:28:18Z")
> [@Chuck11](#): > > By your terminology, are sexes biological valid groupings? What about genders? If sexes aren’t ‘biological valid groupings,’ how would you characterize them? It appears you haven’t read through this thread, since it’s been made clear that virtually the only person who questioned the idea that sexes are not “biologically valid groupings” was Rand who started this thread. So yes, “males” and “females” are biologically valid groupings but “whites” and “blacks” aren’t and it is utterly moronic to compare “whites” and “blacks” to “males” and “females”. ---
**Author:** ![Chuck11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/96bed5/32.png) [@Chuck11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chuck11)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2012, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779/460 "2012-03-19T23:35:56Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > For the purposes of a debate on classifying human subspecies, the terms are interchangeable. So the thread topic is: > [@](#): > > The purpose of this thread is to ask believers/proponents of the above claims about race the following question: Is there “such a thing” as gender? In other words, you believe it is not meaningful biologically to say that one person is (e.g.) black and another is (e.g.) white–do you think it is meaningful biologically to say that one person is male and another is female? It’s not specifically about “classifying human subspecies” but about “biological meaningfulness.” And the author doesn’t seem to equate “biological meaningfulness” with “taxonomic validity.” Otherwise, how would the comparison between race and gender make sense? If the thread topic was “classifying human subspecies” (and if our topic of discussion was the same), I wouldn’t have brought up the distinction. Regardless, you’re right that it’s not pertinent to our current discussion. So let’s drop the issue (for now). > [@](#): > > Yes, you’ll find differences between traditional continental populations. No, you won’t find differences that consistently match. Since our current debate concerns classifying human subspecies, could you show me why “consistently matching,” as you mean it, is relevant? From what I can tell, all that is needed is a “set of phylogenetically concordant” traits. So, yes, there needs to be consistency among some traits (hence a set), but not among all, if that’s what you mean. And to be honest, I don’t know what you mean. Could you give an example using a pair of non-human subspecies? (Did you discuss this issue with Chen? – I must have missed your argument.) Specifically, could you explain in what sense the differences between human populations “don’t consistently match” but do between valid subspecies? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-theres-no-such-thing-as-race-is-there-such-a-thing-as-gender/614779.md?page=24)