I am not sure what black and red are still, but certainly we should think groups are better than one another on arbitrary criteria, I agree, if that was what you meant.
If this was to me, then my answer would be yes, and that I do not believe the Buddha established those rules. Why? Because they are bizarre and arbitrary and reflect more the worldly concerns of an institution trying to seem “proper” to a worldly society than the unworldly concerns of a unworldly master teaching an unworldly path. A master for whom, if seeming “proper” by society’s worldly standards were important, would have never left his riches, his wife, who would have continued to have more children and perhaps entered into politics as a king, had he cared more for worldly reputation.
If someone is sickly to the point of not easily surviving and might be a burden on a community with few resources, that is another matter of practicality, but I do not personally believe the Buddha has a special aversion to, hatred for, or dislike of, for instance, people who have had their testicles crushed. I do not believe the Buddha would consider that to be something that significantly hinders samādhi.
That is, after all, the justification given in Buddhist literature for bans on the ordination, teaching, and sometimes even association, with what we now call sex and gender minorities. It is said that the homosexuals lust is too disordered the (s)he cannot calm their mind, that the gender-changer is too ambiguous and prone to changeability to sustain samādhi. These are from Path of Purification. I will find the quotes from Ven Buddhaghosa when I am home from work.
This is not a Theravāda-exclusive issue either. Venerable Vasubandhu has only similar statements on the matter. Furthermore, Ven Buddhaghosa’s point on the hindrance of the changeability of the gender-changer is anticipated in the post-canonical Milindapañha and Nāgasenabhikṣusūtra. I can find these citations as well later.