Eh, even if you don't call it race, there are phenotypes with empirical categorical sameness and documented ethnographic shared ancestry *as well as genetically researched and confirmed ancestry*. Most people who go for "race" are going for the 17th Century essentialist version of it which spoke of a Yellow Man, a Black Man and a White Man.
Y'all try to say "race is not used anymore," and "race is disproven;" when what is disproven is your by-now Strawman, and it's a Strawman because it's takes an outdated version of the idea to "disprove it," and to say that there is "full consensus on that there is no race." The reality is, as Journal of the National Medical Association (2008) states[1], ▬» The use of race as a variable in research continues to spark debate about whether it should be used, as well as the implications it has for research on health differences. » You might as well try to say that biology disproven by using a 17th Century version of biology to disprove. That's anachronistic.
There's nothing that you can disprove about meta-ethnic categorisable differences, and they are not done away with by saying "people are more different inside groups." I've seen a version of that error before as "humans and mice are 99% genetically the same, so all humans are more related than not." The thing is, there are still marked meta-ethnic differences in genotype and phenotype, and they are a part of medicine in 2020 and will be in 2021 and unless something like Lysenkoism resurges, will continue to be so far an indefinite amount of time.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002796841531470X?via%3Dihub