The use of relative terms is clear when used in the same sentence, and there is no need for an implied average. Taller people are more likely to reach higher sh

The use of relative terms is clear when used in the same sentence, and there is no need for an implied average. Taller people are more likely to reach higher shelves than shorter people. Richer people are more likely to own a car than poorer people. Older people are more likely to have had children than younger people. None of those sentences need an artificial human category to make their meaning clear. Also, I don't know what point you're trying to make by implying different base conditions. A "black" person who likes to sunbathe in their garden is also at lower risk of vitamin D deficiency than a "white" person who never leaves their basement. So what? And surely you're aware that at higher latitudes "white" people with darker skin are at greater risk than lighter-skinned "white" people? And "black" people with lighter skin are at lower risk than "black" people with darker skin? Of course it's down to genetics—at no point have I implied otherwise. The variance in baseline melanin is of course genetic! But, like it or not, "a characteristic is genetic" does not mean "races are real". I suggest you catch up on the subject of human population genetics. There is no such thing as human race in the biological consensus. Rather, it is an arbitrary social construct present mostly in Western and especially American society, which doesn't even have consistent interpretations across regions or populations.