You're right; "uncontroversial" isn't necessarily the most apt description, given the context. It is, however, mainstream:
I'll also link an engaging critique of the biological basis of race in the context of forensic anthropology, one particular field of anthropology known for its persistence in utilizing the racial classification system:
I was overbroad in my choice of words, but that you'd frame the conception of race-as-socially-constructed being the product of PC policing is concerning. That you'd retort with the accusation that I'm misrepresenting the science or committing "politically motivated doublethink" (which treads awfully close to a certain kind of ideological territory) is... something.
Population genetics is not race. Heritability is not race. Evolutionary biology is not race.
When it's claimed that PC police/postmodernists/cultural marxists/"The Left"/whatever are denying the very obvious truth by being willfully blind to the fact that genetic variation exists within humans, what's really happening is either ignorance to what is being rejected or a disingenuous reframing of the term "race" that is at odds with its use by the public.
From the article:
"Because most alleles are widespread, genetic differences among human populations derive mainly from gradations in allele frequencies rather than from distinctive "diagnostic" genotypes. Indeed, it was only in the accumulation of small allele-frequency differences across many loci that population structure was identified."
Also, the insinuation that genetic differences amongst human populations are equivalent to speciation is alarming, to put it mildly, and I suspect stems from a misreading of those two studies you're comparing. (A percentage of alleles shared between two distinct taxonomic groups is a different metric from a percentage of alleles
universal to a single group)
That article lists a number of caveats towards the end, including:
"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."
It also makes note, that for the purpose of the analysis, it specifically utilizes especially geographically distinct populations, such distinctions as were to conveniently map onto traditional classifications of race. A survey of the world population is a different matter entirely.
"Race is a social construct" does not mean that differences do not exist between human populations. It does mean that modern humans do not exist in distinct taxonomical groupings.
