Calling bullshit on your claim right now. He clearly rejects the notion of superiority, arguing that differences that arise don't equate to that.

Wade wrote a rigorous book that draws on published research. He's a serious writer, and a rigorous one. If you can't respond to his arguments seriously, you shouldn't say anything.

Have you read Wade's book? He points this out.

Wade says no such thing. Please read what he actually wrote.

This fallacy is actually addressed by Wade. He gives a pretty good description on how DNA tests can trace ancestry pretty well, and that there are genetic markers that will distinguish people that line up pretty well on how we understand race today.

I got the stat for gay/bisexual from Stats Canada. I'm assuming that the prevalence is the same in the US.

Because the probability is so much lower.

It comes down to probability. Gay men (or rather, men who have had sex with men) are more likely to be infected with HIV (and about half are unaware of this) than men who haven't had sex with men.

No one is ostracized for not giving blood.

Given the numbers you have presented, this would result in about 0.001% of the blood supply from gay men being HIV positive (and not knowing it), yet test negative for HIV.

2% of gay men have HIV, with half of these not aware of their infection (source - CDC).

So . . .

So good.

It sounds a lot like Stargate, without the military industrial complex.

Does anyone take Margaret Mead seriously today?

They can argue that, but the fact remains that they have a human sense that is not functional.

I'd argue that this didn't age well.

So, are you willing to never fly again?

What does 'allegedly has a swastika tattoo' mean?

Phil Hartman (RIP) was great. He improved the movie.