Is "race" too simplistic a description of an important but complex concept

[chaals]

We use the term "race" a few times in the document, for example as the distinction on which racism discriminates against people, and as a dimension of diversity.

Racism is real, and is a bad behaviour that I believe we do consider acceptable. But I don't think "race" as a single word is a good description of what racism is about.

• While it is commonly used in North American english in a fairly specific sense, even in anglophone cultures there are different ways of understanding the underpinnings of the issue.
• There are cultures where the underlying concept is substantially different, and languages where it is a very difficult term to translate. I suspect this rises to the level of making our document, as it currently is, problematic.
• I do not think it is an objectively measurable factor that we can readily define.
• In many cases harmful behaviours are not based on "race" but on a perceived racial identity.

To the extent that people have a "racial identity" perhaps only perceived by others, perhaps individually held but not obvious to everyone, that is IMHO among the many dimensions of diversity that can help ensure we're getting broad input and decisions are made that match the needs of a global community.

Different people with the same "racial" or ethnic backgrounds and traditions can and do assume different identities. In some cases, identities commonly include a dimension called "race". In other places or cases, assigning a "racial" aspect to certain identities is itself considered a harmful behaviour.

I think this is an important issue, but hard to solve well. However we might be able to solve it "well enough"