Furthermore, most racial conceptions obsess with superficial features that may not correlate with large differences in DNA. There may be two people that look more similar but have wider differences in their DNA than two people that look different.
Furthermore, most racial conceptions obsess with superficial features that may not correlate with large differences in DNA. There may be two people that look more similar but have wider differences in their DNA than two people that look different.
Yes, all words and objects and categories are only leaky abstractions. Our universe is a shimmering swirl of unique patterns, all boundaries ultimately fuzzy.
At the same time, there is observable structure. Words and categories emerge and are judged by their usefulness, how they help us in everyday life -- despite being leaky abstractions. They're never bulletproof descriptions of reality, or you wouldn't be able to say much.
"Jock" vs "nerd", "white" vs "black", "tiger" vs "rock"… Among the infinite axes of how to slice and conceptualize reality, which ones are worth giving a name to? Who decides?
What I was trying to say is that uncomfortable, leaky abstractions are absolutely standard. Is a virus alive or inanimate? Are physics and chemistry distinct disciplines? When does an embryo become a human being?
I wasn't being snarky with my "who decides?". If your actions to change established concepts and words manage to overcome the perceived utility of these concepts and words for others, people will change their vocabulary and the way they view the world. It's happened before. It is an elaborate dance of utility, so keep fighting.