I think there are many questions for which the answer is the same, because the same scriptural message answers them all. There are also many questions where the answers are so interrelated and similar that having a separate answer to them all would be exhausting. There are also so many non-human races in Hinduism that we had a question for all of them we would be drowning in questions about them.
A good example of this is with all the questions about non-human sapient life in Hinduism:
How do Daityas and Danavas look? What is their physical appearance?
Some race descriptions are extremely interconnected and have to be explained together. In explaining them other questions are answered e.g. Does this race represent x human tribe (the answer is no), do aliens exist in Hinduism (technically we are related to most of them but effectively yes), are deity bodies supernatural (not any more than normal for their race), where does x race come from, is x race an Asura or Deva, is x deity an Asura or Deva, etc.
The questions on Caste and Varṇa are similar to this. Every scripture declares Varṇa to be truly identified by physical-form-less traits such as behavior, learning, etc. The question of whether or not it can be inherited in the sense of a child being drawn to the activities that cause them to change into their parent's Varṇa is secondary and there is no worth in debating it if the original meaning of the Varṇas is not drilled in. Thus, it feels like any question on Varṇas inevitably has to have this point elaborated upon before anything specific to the question can be discussed.
There are also many points on this topic in scripture that answer many questions. For example, consider the fact that the Manusmṛti by its own text does not apply to our time Manu Smriti as a source of controversy. This answers multiple questions such as once e.g. Should we move our morality past texts like the Manusmṛti (the Manusmṛti is different because of the different nature of daily life in its time, not a change in morality), was the Manusmṛti written to exploit lower castes (no because then the writer would not make it apply to a foreign time), why do these two Smṛtis contradict each other (they are meant for different times), what does the Manusmṛti tell me to do in x situation (unlikely to be relevant as it does not apply to this time), is x punishment in the Manusmṛti too harsh (without living in that time period it is impossible to tell), should India establish the laws of the Manusmṛti to revert to traditional values (no, because of what the Manusmṛti itself says), why are the Manusmṛti's laws impossible to enforce (you aren't meant to follow them in the first place) etc. One of the biggest uses of the Manusmṛti is to define terms used in other sacred texts. By the way, there is a mistranslation of a verse that has knock-on effects in the text:
ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियो वैश्यस्त्रयो वर्णा द्विजातयः । चतुर्थ एकजातिस्तु शूद्रो नास्ति तु पञ्चमः ॥ ४ ॥
brāhmaṇaḥ kṣatriyo vaiśyastrayo varṇā dvijātayaḥ | caturtha ekajātistu śūdro nāsti tu pañcamaḥ || 4 ||
The Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya are the three twice-born castes; the fourth is the one caste, Śūdra; there is no fifth.—(4)
"stu" is the root word for praising, which declines into "stu" verb (class 1 parasmaipada). The indeclinable "tu," is used with a meaning similar to "but". http://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencoding=iast&q=stu%22&lang=sans&action=Search
This should read at the end basically something like this: Śūdra are once born (not educated) worthy of praise, but the fifth Varṇa is not (worthy of praise).
This translation also makes much more sense considering how every time someone of the Caturvarṇa or from the mixed Varṇas consisting of the Caturvarṇa is depicted and explicitly described as such, they are shown in a positive light (even the instances where they are sinful and wicked have the story diverting to highly praise them for a bit). Everyone not shown in a positive light can be assumed to be at least part a Varṇa outside the Caturvarṇa.
