I mean it's not controversial to argue that on average caucasian men are taller than asian men. I can't find a quotation for that exact fact right now but let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. It's a toy example anyway.

If it's scientific doesn't mean I can argue without repercussion that I should be allowed to cut before asian men in the line in the cafeteria because as tall people we are always hungrier. Even arguing that would (rightly) be considered racist.

I tried to make a toy example but you get my drift - the use of a scientific fact in argument can be racist.

Even if you don't agree with my toy example (either the made up fact or the toy argument) - would you agree that IF scientific argument is found that e.g. one race has less cognitive ability than another that might be "good science" (although ethically questionalble science) - that most uses of such facts e.g in arguments would in fact still be racist? Or do you still insist that scientific facts make all arguments and actions based on them non-racist?

Actually there are numerous observed differences in physical ability that are attributed to race, such as Tibetans having better adaptability to high altitudes than most other groups[1]. Physical differences are relatively uncontroversial, the problem arrives when we start to discuss mental differences.

I see not reason why a difference in environment would not cause various mental adaptations to form along the course of natural selection of geographically separate groups of people. This is an inconvenient idea and has been vehemently suppressed in the scientific community whenever it is brought up [2]. Instead of pretending such differences cannot exist we should instead focus on overcoming these differences so that everyone can participate according to their own unique ability.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_hu... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn#Reception