Αφυλετισμός / nonracialism (μη υπαγωγή και απόρριψη του όρου φυλή)

το κείμενο αφορά τις εθνοτικές/γεωγραφικές φυλές και όχι την σεξουαλική αφυλία

## The Office for National Statistics (of the UK; ons.gov.uk) erroneously/unjustifiedly doesn't recognise nonracialism

Some people are ideologically nonracialists (noun/formal description: ideological nonracialists) (they do not ascribe corporeal attributes to ideological ones and vice versa). I don't speak about racialist nonracialism, because racialists who attack us nonracialists falsely claim that any person who rejects the notion of race is originated from South Africa (they say that because of the etymological history of the term; but ideology is culturally transferable and it can independently/separately reappear).

Nonracialists are not indifferent towards race; the racially indifferent are a different cohort (social statistics is a difficult science; some people do express mixed views, but that's not an excuse not to include cohorts we don't like). Nonracialists care about the non-ascription of races. Thus (most of them) are not "indifferent about [towards] races/a "don't want to answer" subgroup".

When you ask people about their race
(and don't collect DNA samples to statistically label them
according to probabilistic frequency per geographical region)
in order to do science and not quackery,
you have to necessarily include all the options.

Ethnological (or geographical) ideocorporeality (degree of ethnological/geographical ideocorporeality; here not sexual ideocorporeality) is the hypernym/superordinate term of a. racial ascription and b. nonracialism. Degree of ideological and/or social categorisation self-ascription with corporeal attributes/criteria/prerequisites.

The term race as used in surveys based on what people declare (declarative race) is self-ascriptive to a racial or other ideocorporeal option via the interpreted correspondence (or not, or degree of correspondence) of corporeal with ideological attributes and vice versa. Thus The Office for National Statistics must necessarily include all existing (possible) options. Not including nonracialism is not only unethical, but neither scientific.

Some nonracialists are educated and accept statistical genetics, others reject science (or parts of it) and statistical genetics. Though all nonracialists don't accept the correspondence of corporeal with ideological attributes. Not all nonracialists have the exact same ideological standpoint (philosophical view), and the same is the case for all other worldviews; for example some atheists are analytical physicalists and others merely don't like religion.

A nonracialist isn't indifferent towards race (in most cases; some people don't want to declare any ideological attribute) (the nonracialist wants to abolish the notion of race; the purported correspondence between corporeal attributes and social categorisation labelling; for various reasons; subcohorts do exist in all views). A nonracialist isn't someone who merely doesn't want to declare her/his philosophical worldview, by promoting self-discrimination against her/his community of nonracialists (few people might want to keep secret their worldviews; but most understand that social recognition is necessary for social rights).

Thus The Office for National Statistics must necessarily include the option nonracialism/nonracialist in racial surveys (surveys about race; or unbiasedly and hypernymously stated: in ethnoideocorporeality surveys).

Nonracialism if not enforced as the sole option is socially beneficial.

Enforcing a single option of personal identity, is bad (socially damaging), no matter how good that mono-option (single available option) is. Thus the "monorace of nonracialism" should not be promoted (one-size-fits-all is tyrannical). The rejection of mono-options doesn't justify the rejection of options though.

Nonracialists are not some vague "others" (the option other is inappropriate).

Nonracialists are a beneficial part of society when they tolerate other views (and don't want to enforce to others the "monorace of nonracialism"; in democracy we don't enforce our interpretation of kindness on the minds of others; it doesn't work that way).

## The EU's unfair stance on nonracialists

The EU frequently uses ideocorporeality terms (terms for sexual identity, skin colour as racial self-identification attribute, etc.) and their archives are searchable. That isn't bad because communication is impossible without specifics. Vague messages of support don't find target.

But the EU is totally biased and unethical for not recognising the community of nonracialists. The EU is unfair because it elaborately recognises (with searchable texts) the rights of other ideocorporeality cohorts.

Some EU politicians blatantly lie by claiming that the EU never mentions ideocorporeality cohorts; but their texts increase and are easily searchable.

The EU is vaguely nonracialist. It doesn't use the term nonraciality as a monoracial goal, but it promotes ideas of the nonracialist spectrum, which is the correct stance (creating a new monorace of all humans would be tyrannical without consent and without alternative options).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics doesn't recognise the nonracialists (generic nonracialists, not necessarily South Africans); nonracialists = people whose racial self-identification is **none**

Aracialism/nonracialism here is generically used; not in the South African context. It's also not the race-adhering antiracism; it's aracialism-adhering antiracism.

The UK Government is discriminating against nonracialists (generic nonracialists, not necessarily South Africans).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Statistical genetics isn't identical/tautological to social labelling, neither a correct genetical description self-evidently imply ideological adherence to social labels of any sort (genetically descriptive or otherwise).

A person who doesn't want to declare his/her/their race, isn't necessarily a nonracialist.