I really don't care if the people around me have physiological differences from me. It would be wonderful to explore that and such differences. But as OP pointed out the discussion gets co-opted by people who would kill others over physiological differences. How is such a viewpoint conducive to a peaceful society where millions of people with physiological differences exist?

For good reason, the wider community isn't able to have a productive conversation about it. I wouldn't even call that a noble reason, but a necessary one, unless you would be okay with inviting people that want you dead into discussion on scientific consensus.

▲

coderenegade 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is that if you don't stick to truth and make an attempt at objectivity, others will step in to fill the void. This is how you sow division and undermine trust in science.

	▲	orsorna an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm having a very hard time understanding a society where research is openly conducted on innate physiological differences between people, and bad actors don't use this official research to practice open discrimination. The lesser of the two evils is to draw a line and tell people to just accept these differences.

▲

like_any_other 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> people who would kill others over physiological differences

Most of them just want to enforce borders. And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out, as they are told that they don't even exist except as a meaningless social construct, and their desire for ethnic self-preservation is therefore illegitimate - there is nothing to preserve!

The same rhetoric targeting Palestinians: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/perpetuating-the-myth-of-a-p...

	▲	orsorna 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out Are you referring to certain people? People sympathetic to Palestinians? I mean yeah obviously it's wrong to preach equity for me but not for thee, but I'm not really going to get into a pissing match about Israel/Palestine, sorry, because that's deflection from my point. So there are two choices here: 1) Allow scientific discussion on physiological differences or avoid it. Particulary, physiological differences that don't necessarily effect health outcomes but also performance metrics. 2) Do not allow such discussion, and declare an axiom: normalize physiological differences across homo sapiens. You're right to call the latter dogma, although not in the pejorative sense. You brought this infamous conflict up to propose that because option two can be used by bad actors, then we should not normalize option two, and freely discuss physiological differences between people. If you are of a group that has physiological differences scientifically proven to be inferior, you are immediately in an outgroup. You will experience discrimination. Because few (and I'm being generous, perhaps no one truly) can talk about physiological differences without building and holding prejudice. Pragmatically that is just not the case. It's why endless ethnic conflicts exist. I simply cannot formulate an argument for why this should ever be allowed. It sounds like a horror show if you're on the receiving end. A horror show minorities of many types live through every day. To lay "ground rules" so that we do not scrutinize our fellow brothers and sisters on unalienable traits is an ethical imperative to prevent us tearing each other apart. This then leaves only one line, the line where people are more than happy to discriminate based on these unalienable traits, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to ostracize them since they encourage ripping each other's throats out, willingly or as a useful peon.