Ok -- I don't disagree with this, in general, but we aren't at all come to stasis here. The way I'm understanding your argument (and correct me if I've got it wrong), is that you see these examples of bias as being experiential, personal, and in flux, while I'm concerned about the ways in which those small-scale feelings are codified and end up discriminating against a population. The whole purpose of the much-maligned phrase "check your privilege" is about examining those implicit biases and trying to figure out which exactly are "personal preferences," to use your phrase, and which are structural and institutional. Again, I don't know of many, if any, biases that are currently formally codified. Interpretation can certainly be biased, but the codification really isn't.
You're very right to think about micro interactions that way, because when you pass someone on the street whatever biases you both bring to the table are essentially harmless. The key for me, is that I am talking about how these implicit biases are reproduced institutionally and structurally -- so much so that they are often invisible -- which have repercussions broader than the kind of individual judgements and interactions you talk about here. That same situation in the street becomes a lot more problematic when one of the two people is carrying a gun, for instance. or furthermore, if that gun-carrier is a police officer. That police officer isn't exclusively acting on his personal preference or experience, but also as representative of an institution that has (for the sake of example) policed and imprisoned black men disproportionately to other groups of people. But on the flip side, the vast majority of that disproportionate imprisonment arises from a corresponding disproportionate commission of crimes by black men. So that bias is not totally unjustified. In individual situations that bias shouldn't overtly manifest itself in terms of actual interaction, but if the police's job is to protect society as a whole, then I have no problem of the bias creating a higher level of suspicion.
Surely you see the difference between the kind of biases that cause you to discriminate solely on the basis of an inherit trait (race or hair color or nationality, e.g.) versus smelly people or young people or athletes, right? This does get tricky and fuel arguments, for instance, when we talk about overweight and disabled people. Not really. At a specific moment in time, the young person can change his age as much as someone can change their race. The athletic person's abilities are as innate as race. Handicaps and scents and weight and socioeconomic status are often as static as race or nationality.
So TL;DR, your examples, though falsely equivalent, may very well lead to biased thoughts or behaviors on your part, but they generally aren't what I've been calling implicit because you are acting on preference and experience rather than socio-cultural training. Preference and experience are often a product of socio-cultural training. Where else do they primarily come from?
