Very good points! The only correction I would add is that science has proven that race is "it's complicated", just like biological science always tends to do. Edit: except I now see (at your prompting) that you already wrote brilliantly on this very topic in another article, so everyone should just go read that instead of my greatly abbreviated and less eloquent version below.

So "white" is almost a thing, "east Asian" is pretty much a thing, "black" isn't a thing at all (it encompasses way more variation than everything else combined), etc.; but even if you can identify genetic variants in common across a group that you can also identify by visible phenotype (i.e. appearance) and maybe by recent culture, nonetheless variation between individuals is large compared to the cross-group differences in almost every phenotype and genotype (sans the super-obvious ones like melanin levels). And when two groups of humans lived next to each other, of course they married each other and had babies, so there are no crisp boundaries. So science says "it doesn't really matter, but some racial groupings are sorta kinda sensible when it comes to ancestry, and others are complete nonsense".

Yay, science! Thanks for making that so clear! (Of course, it's not science's fault that human ancestry is actually so complicated, nor that human genetics is.)

"Race isn't real" is a decent approximation unless you're in medicine, at which point you probably ought to pay a bit of attention to the prevalence of diseases in people of the same ancestral geographic origin...and then you had probably better care about that (i.e. the actual ancestry), not just "race".