Actually, upon further reading/research on the subject, I'd like to retract this statement:

"The human species has many races."

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

There are objectively no races in the human species lol. It really is just a social construct. I'm actually pretty surprised.

From the article:
"Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race."

The differences in experience you mention are not enough to define a race. I'd suppose a term to address that difference could be coined by you or it already exists. Not sure. Look more into sociology or something. Maybe it's just culture... Not sure.

@TheMiddleWay

Even in sociology, race is not recognized as an objective thing:

From [othersociologist.com]:

"Sociologists describe race as a social construction. This means that race is not based on some innate and immutable scientific fact, but rather, that this concept describes the social meanings ascribed to racial categories."

Could you elaborate more on this:

"Yes, we are. Obviously. D'uh. But I would follow up with "Now where is your humanity in wanting all manner of human experience represented?" and they would just dig in their heels by saying race doesn't exist, there is no need to survey demographics, and one is just promoting race by even asking these questions."

I might just need to hear it in other words. I'm having trouble with this part in particular:

"But I would follow up with "Now where is your humanity in wanting all manner of human experience represented?""

Edit: bold text

@TheMiddleWay

"Now, couple that with the fact that our physical form, our look, has a clear effect on how we are perceived in society as well as some other physical effects (such as a black persons resistance to sunlight v. a redheads) and you start seeing that race does exist... "

I never denied that race exists. I admitted that it does...only as a social construct when considering humans and clarified that biologically speaking , race does not exist in the HUMAN species. It exists in the biological sense in other species however. It also DOES exist only as a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT in humans.

"The key to race, or the less contentious ethnicity, is one of categorization."

That's an equivocation fallacy. Race and ethnicity are not the same thing.

[asanet.org]

"“Race” refers to physical differences that groups and cultures consider socially significant, while “ethnicity” refers to shared culture, such as language, ancestry, practices, and beliefs."

"we have a basis to categorize humans based on what their genetics and looks are but... that still means they are human."

The articles I've cited explain that in fact, there are no bases upon which to categorize races.

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race."

This same quote also refutes this idea:

"And in that categorization there are objective data: A black person, by virtue of their genetics, will have difference with an asian person and their genetics: an asian will never have strong melanin production like a black person; a black person will never have epicanthic folds."

These are adaptive traits. Meaning that other "races" are capable of developing these same traits should they be given enough time in an environment which would allow them to adapt them. They are not defining of their "race."

"In aspects of intelligence, socialization, rights, etc... there is no difference between one human and that next."

In America, I am happy to agree with you as far as rights go. However, in regards to intelligence and socialization, we are not equal. There is a massive range of difference in our intellectual capacity and manner in which we are socialized...

On intelligence:
[ghr.nlm.nih.gov]

"These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals."

As for socialization:
[hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca]

"There are a number of things that can affect an individual’s socialization process. The amount of impact that each of the agents has on an individual will depend on the situation, the individuals experiences, and the stage of life the individual is in."

"Should be the same but it just isn't and it's the recognition that each viewpoint has it's strenghts and weaknesses that lay at the heart of humanity, not simply claiming that they are both equal for being human (which is a truth but a useless truth in this case)"

The fact that humanity is shared is not useless. It is helpful in communicating a sense of unity and reminding each other of what you mentioned earlier -- "that all humans do not share the same experience and yet are equally valuable;". Though, again, I personally do not agree with the idea that we are equally valuable depending on the definition of valuable.

"People are not equal but we are equivalent. Therein lay my humanity, in the realization that you are not equal to me but you are equivalent to me."

This is just a bit absurd. You cannot be equivalent without being equal. From what I've seen you saying, I would think that you mean to say that we are equivalent in that we are human, while we are not equivalent in a broad number of other manners. But this is not the same as being equal without being equivalent. That is just logically impossible. And our inequivalencies can be used to asses one another. "Fill gaps" in a sense. If coming to address one another's strengths and weaknesses is your concern, then it is not necessarily a matter of race, because as mentioned in the article concerning biological race, there is massive genetic variance between individuals, but not groups. Not enough variance and likeness between groups of people to distinguish a "race". And so perhaps the best way to assess our strengths and weaknesses is to look at things in a case by case manner. Because even within your "races" there are drastic genetic differences between one another... just not enough to define a race.

Edit: grammar

@TheMiddleWay
"Again, if we don't want to use "race", we can then use "ethinicity" to categorize the genetic ancestry of both groups."

Ethnic groups are determined based off of culture, beliefs, traditions, etc... There is no genetic link. Genetics is concerned with phenotypic expression. Using it to "categorize the genetic ancestry" of any groups would not work very well because it has no link to genetics.
Next, I have no problem with using race because of any connotations it carries except illogical ones.

"I disagree. I think there is enough variance to claim that a latino experience will be different than a black experience. This variance will be based on how we look and thus how we interact with others that look like us, and don't, and how our culture molds us and how that culture is the same, and different, than those around us."

It's not a matter of disagreement. Both biology and sociology are in line with using "race" to describe physical variations among humans. In biology, there isn't enough genetic variance linked to these physical traits to divide or even distinguish a race. It has nothing to do with "experience." Sociologically however, distinctions are admittedly made based upon the populace's understanding or lack thereof of these biological differences and similarities. Race in sociology is a matter of how people make sense of genetic and phenotypic variance and what social standing they give to people who carry certain kinds of traits. I think it has a lot to do with politics and agenda.

Thanks for the equivalent and equality insight. I suppose I was at fault. But it's probably worth noting that humans and measurements aren't the same thing.

Edit: thread is getting long. Might stop responding soon.

I agree basically, but what are you going to call those gene pools created by inbreeding that are more visual than substantive? You’ll need some word or other. The current word is “race”. Isn’t that good enough? Whatever label you choose will become skewed and misleading. Do you propose having no label at all.

For domestic animals we have “breeds”. For plants we have “varieties”. I expect the populace is going to continue referring to Blacks, Asians, Whites, etc as races whether or not we like it. The reason is that some word is needed.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, racism exists. It is the false application of the concept of race in a deliberately bigoted sense. The "black experience" and the "white" experience" are perceptions of life experiences as a result of enculturation and of racism.

@TheMiddleWay Because human beings often create false constructs to serve their purposes -- often nefarious. Is that too hard to understand?

@TheMiddleWay Like I said. It is the human species. There is no such thing as the human race. Ask any expert in biology or anthropology. You continue to do a disservice.

@WilliamFleming Most educated and thinking people do not use the word race. Try using the word "culture" , as in Asian culture, Black culture, German culture. It is more accurate and descriptive and less onerous

@TheMiddleWay Ethnicity is an accurate and useful term. Race is not. Use of the term condones a term which has its origins and common usage in bigotry.