Did you know that identifying crucial biometric data to identify victims and catch perpetrators is racist?

You probably didn't, you racist person, you.

...A group of forensic anthropologists are urging their peers to cease trying to identify the race of human remains based on biological traits, arguing such determinations are inaccurate and often rely on racial stereotypes.

"We urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation," wrote Elizabeth DiGangi of Binghamton University and Jonathan Bethard of the University of South Florida in a study released in January.

Okay, so these professionals argue there are some shortcomings and guesswork related to finding ethnic data. I guess we should just abandon that then – you know, instead of creating better tech and scientific processes to help us identify victims' remains.

"Ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy," state DiGangi and Bethard in their study, adding that their analysis uses critical race theory to "continue to situate and contextualize our challenge to the use of macromorphoscopic (hereafter, morphoscopic) traits, as well as introduce critiques of craniometric and dental morphological analysis in ancestry estimation."

My goodness.

Can you imagine if Marxist-driven CRT was mainstream back when DNA testing first became available? These peeps would be arguing that it should never be implemented because it might cause non-white people to get arrested for murder and stuff.

"Forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the racist context of the criminal justice system in the United States related to the treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; nor have we considered that ancestry estimation might actually hinder identification efforts because of entrenched racial biases," the researchers state in the study.

This isn't going to fix the criminal justice system. All it will do is allow ACTUAL MURDERERS TO ESCAPE so woke researchers can feel better about the racial ratios in prison.

At least there are people pushing back against this:

"If forensic anthropologists abandon determining race, then they are going to be doing victims and their families a big disservice and are basically engaging in a dereliction of their duty," said San Jose State anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss in an email to The College Fix.

"I think it's this weird phenomena; they want to place emphasis on the social construction of race (and racism), but want to deny the biological concept of race," Weiss said. "Nevertheless, they would never support making the argument that one can self-determine race."

Contained within this quote is a perfect summation of Marxism through a race-conflict lens: "They want to place emphasis on the social construction of race (and racism), but want to deny the biological concept of race..."

Kyra Stull, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Nevada, Reno, joined with a number of fellow academics to push back against DiGangi and Bethard in their own letter to the editor to the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

"As part of the medicolegal community seeking justice for the deceased and closure for the living, forensic anthropologists must delicately balance the complicated relationships between population history, social constructs, and legal systems not only in ancestry estimation, but in the totality of the biological profile," Stull and the others wrote.

"Skeletal features can be used to make predictions about probable social race groups because of their correlations to local population distributions," they write, adding, "no empirical data indicate that forensic anthropological ancestry estimates promote racially biased investigative outcomes."

How accurate are these testing practices, you ask? After all, if we can only determine ethnic makeup with 5% accuracy, maybe this isn't a big deal.

Allysha Winburn, a forensic anthropologist at the University of West Florida, set out to discover just how accurate racial identification of remains was.

According to an article in Science magazine, Winburn found that among about 250 resolved cases in which forensic anthropologists offered an ancestry estimate, they were around 90 percent effective in determining the person's social race.

However, in the cases where scientists classified remains as being of "mixed race" or "other," they were wrong around 80 percent of the time.

So basically this practice is insanely accurate within the current tech parameters we currently have, but is still limited by DNA samples that contain a wide array of genetic markers.

It gets even better though: the woke researchers want to possibly eliminate the identification of gender, which I'm sure will help detectives catch the bad guys:

Weiss said identifying remains by gender may be the next thing to go: "I suspect that the next problem that will arise in forensics is sex identification; maybe this is already a problem?"

It'll be interesting to see how police catch serial killers in future episodes of crime shows where the detectives have no information on victims... except the fact that they were human beings.

P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇