Then you aren't talking about race. You're talking about something other, distinct phenomenon, which you've labelled raced either because you don't understand the topic, because you're trying to rationalise racist attitudes, or because you're just being willfully difficult.
The way I use the word race is perfectly fine, and is perfectly reasonable.
In the animal kingdom, we do define races (or subspecies, as it seems to be the more "modern" term in the english-speaking world) by the fact that they could interbreed but don't, mainly due to geographical separation, though other reasons can apply, too. The racial distinctions are not generally that useful as they have no predictive power aside from usually being locally separated, but that's precisely why they're useful here, because "race" describes exactly the type of segregated groups that have developed into different phenotypes.
It's interesting though, when I look for the term "race" on the internet, I find tons of denialism, redefinitions, and wordswaps such as race -> subspecies. When I look for the German word "Rasse" almost all results I find describe the word as I use it - and that's after that one random guy tried to establish the Herren
rasse - and some people discussing where the term is useful - which, as I said myself, is mostly limited to grouping people roughly into geographically separated groups - and where it is not - for most other aspects. So maybe it's just again the same problem that we see so often, that America is full of morons who need to change the meaning of words all the time.
In either case, what I said was perfectly reasonable, if the word race is not at all associated with the original concept behind it anymore, then that's tragic and a source of confusion, but it is the right word to describe the concept, and the logic of my argument still stands.
