This is very well-written and I think probably largely true for most people.

But I think there's also a lot of diversity in how people perceive the world. Of course, this is greatest in people who receive a clinical diagnosis of some manner of neurodivergence, but it's true more broadly also.

For this reason, I'm not that comfortable telling people what they do and don't see. I'm happy to tell them what people see on average--we can back that up with studies that demonstrate effects (e.g. people "see color" in names of job applicants, and sometimes that informs their decisions). Implicit bias is a thing. There is a good deal of subconscious processing that you're not aware of. But that doesn't mean that I know what any individual person "sees" without side information. (You might be able to get a better idea with a well-designed implicit bias test. But the methodology is often poor, conflating cognitive inertia with bias.)

I don't think "I don't see color" is a useful thing to say in most contexts. In addition to being technically incorrect unless the person is blind, it sounds kind of like saying, "I'm not a murderer."

Oooookay. What are you to conclude from the fact that I'm mentioning murder at all?

On the other hand, the contrasting directive, "DO see color!" doesn't seem like a good idea in most cases. Implicit bias is real, and so is priming. (And so is stereotype threat.) By calling attention to a feature, you amplify the effects of implicit bias regarding that feature. The only reason you'd want to do this in general is if you thought the bias was a good thing.

(In specific cases there can be reason to--for instance, to help counter a stereotype, it helps to point out people who defy that stereotype.)