"Evolution, it should be remembered, predates gender by a long time."
1. Good point - gender is 50 years old (first used in 1963).
2. What about other, non-human organisms? If we leave humans out of it, there have to be significant differences in brains between sexes of different species.
The only people who use birth control are women, it's definitely an attack on women to attack birth control. And some women don't get a choice to use birth control, there are medical issues which necessitate stabile hormones. Unless you ask, you have no idea why a women is on birth control.
Reading the comments below, I am guessing that most people simply don't understand the terminology you are using. Ie you have to define what are:
1. Public service
2. Lock in a price
3. What are the prices (vs margins)
4. What's a starting price
I understand your question because I get regular bills from my insurance company that say "Doctor usually charges $1,000 for the procedure you had but we have negotiated price $100, so that's what you owe, as you are still below your deductible."
As I understand the current system, medical institutions negotiate different prices with every insurance company. They start high and the size of the insurance company's patient pool helps them get better price per service.
It seems weird, because it is weird. I can not think of another industry that works like this, where prices can be unknown until it goes to billing. Forcing them to fix a price and publish it to a government registry could possibly allow market forces to drive lower prices than even the largest insurance companies can negotiate.
Right - but I don't think anybody took that seriously. Even the tea partiers saying it most likely only meant it as a 'Obama is a very bad guy and the worst name we can call him is Hitler'.
>His point is that people go to Gab because they are thrown out of other venues
my point is that they aren't being thrown out because of their political views.
the guy in the above example wasn't purged because he was a conservative. it's a shock, I know, but consider the fact that he was shown the door because he was an asshole.
Notice how frequency of use spikes by 500% over last 5 years. That means that either the world has got immensely more racist, we started noticing it more or the word has just got diluted to where it doesn't mean anything (by a factor of 5, to be precise).
You have every right to believe in whatever you want.
I'd suggest you read this piece by a someone who you can relate to - a "member of a desperate and discombobulated coastal elite" that discusses how definition of the term varies:
No, in general establishments can refuse service to anyone they please - imagine a consultant forced to engage with every client who asks!
There are certain protected classes of people you cannot discriminate against. I'm having a really hard time seeing how Breitbart could fit any of those definitions. You can totally refuse to serve customers acting in a way you find objectionable.
"the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin."
If someone refuses me service as a jewish white man, that's illegal (despite jews/whites/men are not being a protected class)
"Positive discrimination for minorities is legal."
White and asian men (the groups discriminated by this policy) make up about 37% of US population. So in this instance we've already reached the point where 'minority' make up the majority of the population.
The answer to your question is 'black' because of political correctness. This is a great example of why it's pernicious - as it robs us of ability to describe the world.
There is actually a more appropriate term - 'mulatto' which was specifically created to describe people born to black / white parents. Today it's considered 'dated and offensive', so we don't have a 'polite' and 'correct' way to describe the ethnicity of our (current) President.
Would you deny the existence of dog breeds because there exist labradoodles or any other mixes?
The idea that a mixed-race person is considered to be a member of only one of their parents' races long predates people's unwillingness to use "mulatto."
And the idea that people must call him "black" because they're not allowed to say "mulatto" is absurd. "Mixed" would describe it without causing any offense, as would "half white, half black."
I remain amazed at how insistent some people are that the lingering consequences of centuries of racial injustice in this country are somehow caused by "political correctness" in the past few decades.
Even before mulatto fell out of use, most white people called anyone with "a single drop of black blood" black. I grew up an a racist part of the southern US, and I assure you that my neighbors would have considered "mulatto" to be a kind of black person.
You know, every time I hear somebody complain about "political correctness" they follow it up by saying something really ugly and inaccurate. Then they complain, "gee, isn't it too bad that people don't let us use these dated terms anymore?". The reason we don't use the term "mulatto" is that there are a whole bunch of wrong assumptions rolled into that word. That there is any such thing as mixed vs pure race, for instance. The distinction is wrong. I mean, yeah it takes away your ability to describe the world a certain way, but it's because that way of describing the world is historically linked with murder, genocide, and slavery!
I'm not a native English speaker and to me this word has none of the connotations you describe. I'm with
'Residents of Spain, Latin America, the Caribbean, and some countries in Africa freely use the term mulatto, or its cognates in other languages, usually without any suggestion of insult'
The term mulatto is almost intrinsically offensive, as the two most likely etymologies mean "mule" or "foreign". It has a strong pejorative connotation.We have several polite terms for the President and others of mixed ancestry, like "multiracial", which is more accurate, comprehensive,and descriptive than "mulatto"
How is multiracial more accurate when it equally describes someone who's amerindian / chinese as european / african?
If you could propose a more PC term than mulatto (which specifically describes someone with white/black parents), I'd take it - but I don't think there is any.
In the US, when mulatto was in more widespread use, the term was used to describe Turks as well as persons of white/south Asian and white/ Native American backgrounds. So it is not necessarily more specific, in practice.
I think the best reason not to use the term when in North American circles is that those it refers to generally strongly dislike it because of its poisoned historical past, which created an implicit comparison between mixed people and sterile mules, or more generously, strangers in their own land. Imagine if the colloquial term for Americans of Irish/German ancestry was "banana slug" or "interloper".
1. Good point - gender is 50 years old (first used in 1963).
2. What about other, non-human organisms? If we leave humans out of it, there have to be significant differences in brains between sexes of different species.