[happytoexplain]

There's no need to torture semantics. We all understand how the terms "black" and "white" are used in the English-speaking world. They are umbrella terms with varying usage depending on what superset/subset of people you are talking about in the moment. E.g. in the US, "black" usually refers to dark-skinned people of African descent (I assume you know this), but other dark-skinned people might be included depending on context. Yes, biological/genetic "race" is a many-dimensional spectrum, in which context it's fine to argue that "race" doesn't exist, but that doesn't make the colloquial words used to describe "race" meaningless. It just makes their borders fuzzy when mapped onto a biological context.

[dofm]

Biological race does not, indeed, exist. Really at all. Defining it as a many-dimensional spectrum just so you can to continue to use the word "race", now that is torturing semantics.

The semantics I am referring to are the suggestion that "white" and "black" exist as races on a genetic level.

The example I am introducing is to test the understanding behind that suggestion.

[simianwords]

> Biological race does not, indeed, exist. Really at all

Self identified race/ethnicity correlates highly with ancestry. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1196372/

It is therefore correct to suggest that race does have a biological basis.

[dofm]

Correct based on a correlation? Novel idea.

You should consider answering my question though.