To be clear, the term is used and has been used. But the idea that it's a concept that everyone agrees on, or that everyone agrees must be used, is not at all t

To be clear, the term is used and has been used. But the idea that it's a concept that everyone agrees on, or that everyone agrees must be used, is not at all true. The debate is alive and well in philosophy and in the sciences. Personally, I don't really see any use for the term in science, beyond referring to a social/informally named group. For a philosophical discussion see a good summary here: https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/what-is-race-four-philosophical-views/ https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/what-is-race-four-philosophical-... And for a very extensive summary of relevant scientific and genetic findings, see the wikipedia page on Race as a system of human categorization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Biology,_anatomy,_and_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Bi... The key quote from that article is: > Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable,[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive[7] or simplistic.[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[20][21] You can clearly see a number of competing views, including constructivist, essentialist, and anti-essentialist, the idea that the concept of race is irrelevant to the study of biology.