From the topic of race, it will have nothing to do with bathrooms or sports. There is no real functional change here from the perspective of the K-12 school system.

As far as colleges, the reporting of race does not come from your school system. It is actually already self-reported, and has been for pretty much ever. While lying on these forms can get your application revoked (depending on the application), there is basically nothing in the way of checks for this, because it just isn't really a problem. Society has yet to crumble, so Deleware doing something that changes literally nothing should really not have that big of an impact. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684745

This isn't a social science article, but a biomedical one.  If you did any real research, you'd see that the vast majority of anything you'd find would support the statement that race is not a biological reality.  

Here's an important question to ask yourself:  How do you define race?  What are the criteria for what is "black" or "white" or any other "race" you can think of?  Do all members of said "race" express the traits you defined?  Do other "races" NOT share these traits?  If you really understood what science is, you'd quickly come to an answer on that with all the data available. 

The term "race" has no formal definition however, going by consensus in the field of biology it is generally regarded as either genetically distinct populations within a species in combination with geographical or physiological isolation. Going by that definition there is indeed a biological basis for human races and there not need be a hard and fixed criteria to distinguish "races" too as evolution is a continual process. "Black", "white" or whatever races we can easily identify the individual based on the matrix of genetic markers according to the pattern of a specific species sub-group population genetics ... (classifications need not be discrete either, it can be defined on a continuum like races too so yes they can share traits and like I said before, "races need not have a fixed criteria")

Also the paper fails to take into account Lewontin's fallacy and yes I understand what science is but you won't like the conclusion and it's that race is about as much of a "social construct" as gravity or any other physical phenomena is. If race is established on clinical grounds then there definitely exists a physiological basis for different human races in the physical reality ... 

The "specifications" for human races is "loose" so to speak ... 

You guys still afraid some dark skin kid is going to identify with something you don't agree with? I think you have to question yourself for caring so much... Race is not even a real thing as their is only one human race. Genetics are interchangeable, you can mix any people of opposite sex and make a new human being... and therefore you are obsessed with skin color in most cases.

This fact that we have to pick a 'race' in the beginning is the real problem. Also Black Panther was a great movie.

Your argument in a nutshell:  "I've cherry picked all the data I could find that supports what I already believe, therefore I am right and you are wrong."  

Seriously, you really didn't read up on this topic at all.  You just claim the science backs you up and try throwing in words that make it seem like you know what you're talking about.  I'm going to get real blunt here and say that you just don't know anything about the topic at all.  Seriously, you keep insisting on your points without actually linking anything meaningful.  You've linked the same two articles at least twice now, and the one that you linked just now actually says the opposite of what you're arguing, which proves to me that you can't read. 

Don't believe me?  Here it is:

“There are many, many who claim these use of (racial) categories may not have any biological meaning, only social meaning, and basing medical decisions on them may be problematic,” said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Medical Center for Biomedical Ethics.

“But the more we know genetically, the more we know these social categories don’t correspond to genetic groups,” Magnus said.

So stop pretending like you know this subject better than the people who actually study it.

(Yeah, I am aware that I run the risk of getting a warning or banned for this response)

That wasn't about if race within humans exists. It was on whether humans races fit the definition of biological race or not. Science doesn't have one or two definitions of race.

Humans have different geographical races. Even so there's biological differences between races in humans beyond skin color. They have different health issues/benefits. Asians tend to have a problem with dairy products. They get cancer less. What the word "race" is used to describe is not a social construct.

edit. Fixed a word.

So what definition of race are you using? Because it seems to be getting so vague and nebulous at this point that it is meaningless as a descriptor. 

Ideological argument ... 

Race is biologically real and there's a drug to prove it regardless of what the other assertion says in my linked article and nothing is going to change that population genetics exists ... 

I don't pretend to know the subject either, these are my findings with my conclusion too and if you don't like it then you find a liberal echo chamber to bounce off your ideology ... 

Exactly ... 

The point of linking that article was, in fact, to prove that humans do not have a "biological race."  

You are also making arguments without any sources here.  Also your generalizations are not at all universal.  A lot of what you described can be explained by a lot of different things.  Asians having a "problem with dairy products" (otherwise known as being lactose intolerant) has a lot more to do with the Asian population not drinking milk historically.  It's an adaptive trait that has nothing to do with being Asian itself, and makes no sense to call it "race" when it isn't even universal.  Humans as a whole were generally lactose intolerant until a bunch of them started drinking milk.   Your argument is weak at best.

edit:  I'd like to point out that with certain studies, it is useful to use "race" as a label since it is a well-recognized one and IS useful for studies in psychology and sociology.  Which are "soft sciences" and not "hard."  

Also "geological races" doesn't make sense since there are no hard boundaries in geology.

I'll pose the same question to you that I did to Aeolus: What exactly is your definition of race?