Except that this law doesn't do that... Since it explicitly states that they can reject the self identification.

I'll ask the same question that other people talking about how insane this is refuse to answer.

What would you do differently to enter data for the Delaware school computer systems?

That doesn't mean that they WILL reject it. Again, that's likely to stop pranksters and not people like Rachel.

It was just a little jab at the people who laugh at Christians for not believing in evolution while simultaneously ignoring the obvious differences between people who evolved on different parts of the planet over the last 50,000 years.

Oh and lots of people seem to have this mindset. 

"As long as there's at least one flying creature that isn't a bird, and as long as there's at least one bird that can't fly; flying is not a charasteristic of birds."

lol ok

My bad, I wanted to write: "Flying is not a charasteristic that defines birds".

there've been people born with 8 limbs... would you as a result say that being bipedal is, therefore, not a characteristic of human beings?

It is, since that's an abnormality, it's not heritable (I think? If it is heritable, and if a whole dynasty of eight-limbed people arises, then scientists will probably adjust their definition of a 'human'.)

"I don't know how you could possibly have concluded that out of what I wrote."

you said that the characteristics we use to categorise are artificial, the labels may be, but obviously not the characteristics themselves, or was that what you were saying? if so i apologise

I was talking about the selection of characteristics that are being used to divide groups of animals, not the characteristics themselves.

"Platypus don't give birth to living youngs, yet they're mammals. Do you start to notice how complex and random these divisions are sometimes?"

i do but you don't, is your argument not that the divisions do not exist at all?

Obviously they exist, but people created them. Scientists could just as well have considered that the platypus is a bird since it lays eggs, and they could just have adapted the definition of a 'bird' a bit. But they decided that it makes more sense to consider it a mammal, so they adjusted the definition of 'mammal'. So now 'mammal' doesn't necessarily mean anymore that the species can't lay eggs.

"The idea of 'cannibalism' is just as artificial as 'species'."

so there's no difference between killing and eating a cow versus a human?

If you're killing a cow, you're killing a cow. And if you're killing a human, you're kiling a human. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

"However, there's no way to strictly determine which reason is better than others."

yeah i can tell you've got the whole "everything is subjective nothing is objective" thin;g going on

but regardless, if there are no inherent differences between animals why can't elephants swim in fish schools?

I never said there are no inherent differences between animals. Actually, every single individual is unique. Some differ more than others. But you can never draw a clear line to divide the animal kingdom into groups.

"scientists categorise and label phenomenon THAT ALREADY EXIST when it comes to biology

Nope."

really now, so what have scientists created as an example?

Almost all biological notions, going from 'life' to 'bird' to 'great tit', are created and defined by people/scientists.

So because some people might do something resulting in no functional change, we should make things more complicated for everyone? I'm not sure I follow the logic.

Do some people have a problem with critical thinking or something? 🙀

What happens when you let people identify as whatever race they want then make it legitimately recognised in the legal sense and you give entitlements based on race like grants, scholarships, oppression points, social promotion. I bet east asians would love to be able to say they're black just for school.

That doesn't mean that they WILL reject it. Again, that's likely to stop pranksters and not people like Rachel.