There have been numerous studies comparing genetic ancestry to self identification of race with an effectively perfect mapping. Here [1] [2] are a couple of papers. The reason there are not more papers is because the data here is not even remotely ambiguous. Your position is a semantic strawman -- it claims race references something other than ancestry, and then goes on to argue that that 'something' does not exist. It is the most classical form of a strawman - set it up and burn it down. Race, both in denotation and connotation, is a reference to genetic ancestry.

[1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

[2] - https://jmg.bmj.com/content/47/12/835