&quot;Race&quot; doesn&#x27;t exist in the way that &quot;democracy&quot;, &quot;socialism&quot;, and &quot;fascism&quot; don&#x27;t truly exist.<p>For a large number of Christians, the Hindu gods don&#x27;t &quot;truly exist&quot;. Similarly, to may people the Christian God doesn&#x27;t &quot;truly exist.&quot;<p>That doesn&#x27;t mean there&#x27;s no outcry about those topics. The Walt Disney Company is another social construct which doesn&#x27;t &#x27;truly exist&#x27;, but there are real-world consequences should you try to infringe on their copyright ... copyright is another thing that doesn&#x27;t &#x27;truly exist&#x27;.<p>&quot;if it isn&#x27;t a social construct but a biological one then racism is justified&quot;<p>&quot;Biological&quot; has many different meaning.<p>People have different color eyes, based on biology. Given your logic, that justifies the general discrimination of people based on eye color, yes? (FWIW, I am alluding to the &quot;Blue eyes-Brown eyes&quot; exercise.)<p>The underlying question you would need to address is why should some biological aspects merit categorical discrimination but not others, which sorts of discrimination are appropriate for each biologically traceable aspect, and when can technology (like my genetic disposition towards myopia) make it no longer reasonable to discriminate?<p>Research hasn&#x27;t identified a useful biological justification the racial categories we currently have, any more than separating people into blue&#x2F;brown eye categories is useful.