You're saying a lot of things which are true without mapping them to explicit implications; this is creating a smokescreen by assuming that your 'technical nuan

You're saying a lot of things which are true without mapping them to explicit implications; this is creating a smokescreen by assuming that your 'technical nuance' makes your conclusion self-evident. As far as I can tell, what you're trying to imply is that the definition of terms are driven by their use, and the use of the term race is disgusting, because it makes people feel like they can't change their situation or inflate the ego of other people with all the trappings that go along with it, which is bad, so we shouldn't use it and race doesn't exist. Yet so-called "human biodiversity" doesn't go away just because the way some decide to use the information is bad. Genetic variation exists, we can count it, and we know it's unevenly distributed. But even through this uneven distribution we can assemble models that track the migration of genes through human beings and notice pools of genes in certain populations. Consider k-clustering: it's a way of bootstrapping features, approximate categories. The process is parameterized so that you can create distinctions as great or as fine as you want. Bioinformaticians do this kind of analysis all the time and can assign each person their own label if you like. But it isn't as useful and so we get haplogroups which track variation of genotype much more robustly and compactly. Geneticists and evolutionary anthropologists didn't invent their fields to oppress people. A lot of them were just trying to do science to see where the genes are. You're shooting the science when it's policy makers who are responsible for the "disgusting" use of such information. And if someone has maladaptations, that's no one's fault in particular except the random accidents of Nature; the moral impetus is made more urgent by the acknowledgement of our genes rather than their denial.