There are most certainly meaningful genetic clusters in human populations. You can call these races or something else but to assert that differences between human populations only extend to a few superficial traits like skin tone is just ignorant and silly. For example there is a meaninful genetic reason why some sub-saharan populations have a higher incidence of sickle cell anaemia than Irish people or why most of those with native American heritage are less able to tolerate alcohol than Europeans.

> Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000292970...

Yes, "Continental superpopulations" is a more accurate term but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmcWGV...

It's more true of API, look at an Indian, Chinese and Samoan person.

The API group is basically "everyone else".

This is true in the exact same sense as is saying that all animal species are social constructs with no basis in reality other than the social perceptions of the group delineating them. Which is to say, in not very useful sense at all.

It’s a self label though, so social perceptions aren’t involved. I am whatever race I identify as, not whatever race other people think of me as. I can tell people that I’m Mexican and who are they to say otherwise?

There are limits to the self identification theory. See: Rachel Dolezal.