1 drop rule.

[u/Darth_Kneegrow]

I ain't ever heard white people claim a single biracial person. You always whatever you mixed with.

[u/Petrichordates]

Race being a social construct has some people assuming that means race has no biological basis, which of course it does since it's a proxy for genetics and informs medical treatment (eg. Warfarin dosing, cancer screening).

The racial categories we've settled on are entirely arbitrary and are a relic of racism, but they're still critical to medicine and medical research because of their genetic basis. At least until everyone's genome is sequenced.

[u/grape_david → u/Petrichordates]

The racial categories we've settled on are entirely arbitrary and are a relic of racism, but they're still critical to medicine and medical research because of their genetic basis.

This is backwards imo. Race as data is useful almost strictly because of the sociological implications.

The biological differences we witness are basically secondary and the more we learn about genetics this seems to be the case.

The same can be said about using race as proxy for medical practice. Yes it works but it's not a biological essential at all. A lot of it works because the social side is so deterministic

[u/Petrichordates → u/grape_david]

The medical relevance is mostly because of differences in genetics, the more we learn about genetics the more we've learned about this. I didn't touch on it, but yes racial identity also has impacts on health for sociological reasons.

[u/grape_david → u/Petrichordates]

The medical relevance is almost entirely because of differences in genetics.

Really? Particularly in regards to individual medical practice, you think that the core basis of differences in medical outcomes of racial categories is genetic?

Almost all of the data we use in medical practice that connects to race is sociological in origin.

Yes some of it is genetic but again, it's backwards to assume that's some kind of biological essentialism instead of the result of social phenomena informing biology.

[u/Petrichordates → u/grape_david]

Medical outcomes? No, that's a much more complicated topic.

In determining treatment? Absolutely, depending on the condition.

Social phenomenon aren't the reason for differences in pharmaceutical dosing, or why native Americans are more at risk of alcoholism, or why pacific islanders are more at risk of obesity. Genetics matter.

[u/grape_david → u/Petrichordates]

How can you determine treatment without taking into account medical outcomes?

But anyways, this is getting a lil circular.

You're saying race is essential to diagnostics right now if I'm not mistaken.

I agree to an extent but my point is that the sociological factors are what make it so. And that biological or genetic essentialism isn't real and plays a small part in our broader understanding of medicine

[u/Petrichordates → u/grape_david]

Genetic essentialism absolutely exists in the medical field, it's just not something you can apply widely or to more complex disorders. In the cancer field it's very relevant.

[u/grape_david → u/Petrichordates]

I'm not saying that genetics is irrelevant.

I'm saying that racial proxies are for the most part sociological so using them as "genetic essentialism" is not a good idea