Nonracialism/inadherence to race/εθνολογικός μη φυλετισμός

* nouns: race-nonconformity, race-nonconformist | ethnocultural nonconformity, ethnocultural nonconformist
* adjective: race-nonconforming
* nouns: nonracialism, nonracialist (related to South Africa; rightwingers claim that it's a national nonglobal idea)

race-nonconformity: To reject the notion of race. Not to use corporeal/bodily characteristics to compartmentalize humanity. (Some race-nonconformist/antiracialists reject the science of statistical genetics and other accept science but don't use it to separate people. Accepting science but not using it to separate people is a better justified stance.)

My race is none: I'm a race-nonconformist.

(But your race-nonconformity shouldn't be violent. This is a logical paradox... You have to respect the racialists = people who believe in races but aren't racists (in the UK the confuse racism with racialism). If you become violent, then you are an ideoracist = racist against ideas and opinions. It's mathematically impossible to meet all the criteria at once. The same is the case for other social terms, like religion used in surveys as the hypernym of antisupernatural physicalism/atheism and like metaphysical worldview used as the hypernym of metaphysically indifferent people who have no particular worldview. Social labeling is often a compromise.)

## USA text 1

Some people don't self-ascribe to race; they don't accept the racial social labeling. They are called nonracialists (I don't speak about the South African nonracialism, but about the generic philosophical idea). Nonracialism = not to ascribe people to different races isn't tautological to antiracism, because most antiracists are racialists (not racists) = people who self-ascribe to some race or bodily/corporeally based cohort (like multiracial/mixed = still a corporeal attribute). The US is a democratic country, and respecting the beliefs of the citizen is a federal duty and right. Race is based both on culture and bodily characteristics. Race isn't tautological to genetical facts; because people aren't that accurate. Statistical genetics is factual. Race is to accept a correspondence of culture, bodily characteristics and social cohort label[s]. Thus it is totally necessary the US government when it records race, to include nonracialism/nonadherence to race. The term other is vague and usually means other race or tribe. Study what hypernymy and hyponymy is; how to organise superordinate and subordinate terms. The nonracialist/inadherence to race option isn't in the same hyponymic tier with the other races, because the rejection of (the notion of) race is a hypernymic topic/subject for debate. Being non adherent to race (nonracialist and not mere antiracist) isn't self-evidently included in the options other and N/A. Nonracialism is socially beneficial if it's not forced as an opinion. No opinion should be forced into others. On the other hand, race isn't declared via mere statistical genetics facts, but it includes culture, and the acceptance of the correspondence of bodily/corporeal attributes and culture to social cohort labels. Not all people accept the racial correspondence and it's by no means self-evident (many people don't ascribe to their exact genetical corporeal cohort; for example multiracials ascribing to some single race). Read the American Constitution and act appropriately.