Don't wind up Maajid Nawaz

[shaunbhoy]

I honestly feel sorry for you wandering through life in a fog of ignorance.

Does that mean that you wouldn't feel sorry for him if you weren't wandering through life in a fog of ignorance?

[vetran]

Do you follow , or even attempt to read, any of what the who's who of population geneticists in that list said? Or do you think your brain farts are sufficient to form a conclusion? And you call me a Feck wit? I honestly feel sorry for you wandering through life in a fog of ignorance.

I did and their main objection seems to be with the use of the word Race, specifically the definition of a biological race :
A Troublesome Response: Nicholas Wade Still Avoids the Debate About Race and Genetics | HuffPost

The word ‘‘race’’ is not commonly used in the non-human biological
literature. Evolutionary biologists have many words for subdivisions
within a species (Templeton, 2006). At the lowest level
are demes, local breeding populations. Demes have no connotation
of being a major subdivision or type within a species. In human
population genetics, even small ethnic groups or tribes are frequently
subdivided into multiple demes, whereas ‘‘race’’ always refers
to a much larger grouping. Another type of subdivision is
‘‘ecotype’’, which refers to a group of individuals sharing one or
more adaptations to a specific environment. Sometimes the defining
environmental variable is widespread, so an ecotype can refer
to a large geographical population. However, sometimes the environmental
heterogeneity can exist on a small geographical scale. In
such circumstances, a single local area with no significant genetic
subdivision for almost all genes can contain more than one ecotype
(e.g., Oberle & Schaal, 2011). Ecotypes are therefore not universally
a major subdivision or type within a species, but sometimes
merely a local polymorphism. Ecotypes cannot define ‘‘race’’ in a
manner applicable to all species, and whether or not ecotypes
can define human races will be addressed later. Of all the words
used to describe subdivisions or subtypes within a species, the
one that has been explicitly defined to indicate major geographical
‘‘races’’ or subdivisions is ‘‘subspecies’’

I'm not sure terming those with predominantly African heritage (for instance) as subspecies is particularly helpful with the layman.

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.w...-in-humans.pdf

If they wanted to use another more accessible term I would be fine with it.

They see race as a social construct not a result of evolution. The majority of the public don't. From the outside it seems to be like redefining genders to include edge cases. It won't be popular and most people won't understand why you want to do it.

As my 'Brain fart' said if they want to rename it then great, but it is a thing at least for many, there do seem to be traits in each 'subspecies' that are interesting and need working with just as there are cultural reasons for actions we should investigate.

I prefer to go round in my 'fog' than I would be like you with my head up my arse.