Actually looking this up, seems the notion of race as social vs biological is hotly contested. This is new to me! Fair to say it's a social construct with a biological cause and potential biological implications, then?
I'm all for knocking down biases, just don't want to throw out good data in the process. What's the margin of error on dark skinned people with sickle cell?
Or perhaps more relevant - black people's kidneys were thought to be _healthier_ when it turns out they're 3x more likely to have kidney disease. At first glance this sounds like a very large error but I'm interested in how much of that is biological vs societal risk. Is it really as big of an error as it sounds? What if they start out with healthier kidneys, the +3x comes from somewhere else, and we're correcting far too late in the game when we jostle the transplant line?
I need to ask: what is race, specifically?
Living beings don't inherit traits in a consistent manner, otherwise all siblings would have been identical.
Most likely there are people who have parents of different skin tones who inherited the darker of the two but not the vulnerability to sickle cell anemia.