For one thing, i'd put it this way:
If you (mostly uses as "anyone") don't want to date people of your same sex, does that make you homophobic?
If you don't want to date people of the opposite sex, does that make you heterophobic?
If so, earth would be a bipolar planet of homo- and hetero-haters... but it kind of isn't.
Some claim, genetically our preferences are influenced by what would most likely create the best offspring... which is easily undermined by sexual preferences which are very unlikely to create offspring. Some claim, all our sexual preferences are just constructed and we would all be free to just love and have sex with each other and whatever we wanted to... but then, why won't i be aroused by some people, no matter how hard i try?
So, sexual preferences appear to be something much, much more complex, which we still can't fully understand (if ever).
On the other hand, you might have sexual preferences, but not act upon them (in a healthy way). Ever heard of someone who is attracted to the same sex, but doesn't act upon it? Yes, that does exist, but then is influenced by (constructed) norms and still doesn't automatically make that person a homophobic, most likely it just tells that said person is afraid of opposing norms. Or, a hard question which bugs me since some years by now: Why do sexual abusive people, who can rationalize their behaviour as "antisocial" and sometimes even condemn themselves, too often still feel the "need" to follow their abusive bevahiour (modern psychologists examine this matter for decades now and still can't come to a uniform conclusion, some say there probably is none and on a side note, this is NOT to support sexual abuse, as healthy sexual behaviour can only occur on consent, but i'd say this is a bit different topic)? And what about people who actually can be considered racist and may still have sexual encounters with people of that race - you know, historically, all the slaves who were seen as inferior but sexually encountered, raped, or hold as "love tools" nonetheless (would like to exclude the possibility that this still happens today, but it likely does, somewhere, maybe closer than you might think).
So, a much more interesting point on this matter might be to question the definition of race itself! What quantities and qualities of aligned genotypical, phenotypical, or even social features determine a race anyways, or to get to the base, what is a "race" - other than a sportive speed contest - to begin with? Well, this is kinda cycled in itself, as "race" is a determination made through (common) features to distinguish... well, (common) features. So, by definition, it is an ever shifting common agreement/ consense and people who don't like to think in "racial-categories" might want to drop the term alltogether. Side-note: In a similar fashion you can extend this to "gender" and the discussion around it.
Sooo, in conclusion,
#1 not being attraced to certain features by itself just tells that you aren't attraced to those features, but not necessarily makes you bipolar opposed to those features.
#2 On the other hand, you can be attracted to certain features, but not act upon it, which by itself just tells, that you probably don't want to break with specific norms.
#3 Categorizing by race AND believing that one or more specific races are superior/ inferior makes you a racist by definition.
Of course, #3 might occur with either #1 or #2, as mentioned
mrblakemiller said:
Now, he allegedly has said elsewhere on his site or on Reddit things that paint him to be a dyed-in-the-wool racist
, but doesn't really change anything, in this specific case doesn't even tell us if it is #1 or #2.
Thread over. People can date who they want, but yeah, if someone consciously cuts out an entire race, the potential is there.
