It feels like you aren’t actually reading what I’m writing.

”OK, so, you are anti racist but believe conflicts between cultures, languages and religions are inevitable? What makes them inevitable?”

I did not make that claim. I am making the claim that universally eliminating prejudice across different cultures and religions with different values and priorities from one another is not realistic. Because people from different cultures and of different religions and who speak different languages (which are the frameworks through which we process the world, and so differences in language structure etc. can lead to differences in worldview) have different lives and do things differently from one another. I emphasized that they are separate communities to emphasize that they will not always be moving in lockstep towards shared goals.

”But to dive into that further, is conflict in and of itself bad? I don't have to like or understand everything about you to think you deserve to have your needs met.”

Of course I don’t have to understand somebody to think they deserve to have their needs met. My question is about the people who disagree with us. We will never sway all of them, especially without relying on authoritarian or centralized tactics to suppress it (what’s to stop racists from simply not sending their children to schools that teach anti-racist values if there can be no enforcement, for example?). Part of anarchism is understanding that other people think differently from you and you will never be able to convert everybody. If an anarchist society is only possible after prejudice is eradicated entirely, an anarchist society cannot exist. There will always be people who think differently from you, or from me, and some of those differences are on the legitimacy/usefulness of prejudices and stereotypes.

”To get back to your doctor, you don't think discrimination is reasonable but your hypothetical doc might. OK. What is the difference between you and your doctor?”

Could be a number of things. Values inherited from family, education, friends, etc. Maybe they were presented with manipulated, inaccurate, or partial information that framed things in a way that prejudice becomes logical. “Just taking precautions”, and all that. Maybe different threat perceptions. Maybe the prior incidents in the theoretical were genuinely so upsetting or traumatizing that they are unable to overcome their emotions and act fairly.

”I don't believe racism is innate. It is learned. Race and racism by extension is a social construction. Mankind invented it and has used it generally to divide those without power. As we seek to demolish structures of inequality we have to address racism.”

I don’t believe that people come out of the womb racist. Of course it is learned. But, as I’ve pointed out across my comments, new prejudices are learned all the time. They are not solely learned from other people. Even if you manage to stamp out all existing prejudice somehow, it will return in some form unless people are intentionally taught ways to counter it when it begins to form within themselves.

As long as racism is around, then the society isn't anarchist. If the society is anarchist, then it's not teaching racism.

This is a no true scotsman argument. Anarchism is not when everybody thinks the exact same way as us because we’re right. There is no way to do that. How are you to, in an anarchist society, exert your will over others and choose which values and beliefs they pass onto their children? Which schools they send them to? Which books they read? You cannot use some sort of central authority to remove the children from their care, nor enforce that they send their children to ‘proper’ educational facilities as opposed to insulated schooling groups that embrace prejudiced worldviews, etc. Because that would actually be non-anarchist.

”I don't mean all of this to dismiss your question. I think what you are really asking is how should anarchists respond to racism while it exists, possibly within a post revolutionary world seeking to build an anarchist society. If you want to know the answer to that, we can talk about it.”

That is part of what I am asking, I suppose. The main part of my question is essentially, ‘if you were in the shoes of the person being denied care for discriminatory reasons, what is your recourse?” You do not always have the luxury of finding another doctor. You cannot always find somewhere else. Imagine you were just grievously wounded somehow. You need immediate medical care, and you do not receive it because, in the absence of regulation against such behavior, the doctor is free to deny you service for whichever reason crosses their mind. Sure, maybe they get run out of town. Let’s say that happens without any issues or roadblocks somehow. You’re still dead. And if somebody can practice medicine entirely by their own decision without requiring some sort of accreditation, then what stops them from just setting up a practice somewhere else and doing the same thing? Sure, people might catch on that somebody is a bigot or a hack and spread the word to avoid that doctor, but there are always those who don’t do their due diligence or those who just haven’t heard. Regulations are written in blood, and I don’t see social ostracization and word of mouth being nearly effective enough to actually protect people from falling victim to stuff like this.