>>3842037
>What's the objective biological definition of and criteria for race?
There isn't one single definition (the usual 'gotcha') but we can see clearly that different racial groups cluster together due to shared genetics that separate them from other racial groups, although there can be overlaps and there's not always necessarily a strict boundary between them.
Point being that genetic differences can be quantified, and for example there is more genetic distance between wolves and coyotes (which everyone agrees are separate species) between Europeans and Australian Aborigines (which biological orthodoxy tells us are both the same species) and therefore the line drawn between different species is somewhat arbitrary and politicized.
> Anyway I still don't get it, it's not particularly absurd to say the humanoid dragons are a different species to cat people or elves. If the setting were Sci Fi but the races were identical to how they are now no one would blink at the word species.
It's not absurd, it's reasonable. It's just funny due to the motives for the change being firmly rooted in "anti-racism". People called elves and dwarves and humans and shit "races" for decades and no one gave a shit, it's purely from projecting modern politics onto things.