>And then the dogma that we are all the same is co-opted by people who would see their ethnic group wiped out

Are you referring to certain people? People sympathetic to Palestinians? I mean yeah obviously it's wrong to preach equity for me but not for thee, but I'm not really going to get into a pissing match about Israel/Palestine, sorry, because that's deflection from my point.

So there are two choices here:

1) Allow scientific discussion on physiological differences or avoid it. Particulary, physiological differences that don't necessarily effect health outcomes but also performance metrics.

2) Do not allow such discussion, and declare an axiom: normalize physiological differences across homo sapiens.

You're right to call the latter dogma, although not in the pejorative sense.

You brought this infamous conflict up to propose that because option two can be used by bad actors, then we should not normalize option two, and freely discuss physiological differences between people.

If you are of a group that has physiological differences scientifically proven to be inferior, you are immediately in an outgroup. You will experience discrimination. Because few (and I'm being generous, perhaps no one truly) can talk about physiological differences without building and holding prejudice. Pragmatically that is just not the case. It's why endless ethnic conflicts exist.

I simply cannot formulate an argument for why this should ever be allowed. It sounds like a horror show if you're on the receiving end. A horror show minorities of many types live through every day.

To lay "ground rules" so that we do not scrutinize our fellow brothers and sisters on unalienable traits is an ethical imperative to prevent us tearing each other apart. This then leaves only one line, the line where people are more than happy to discriminate based on these unalienable traits, and I think it's perfectly acceptable to ostracize them since they encourage ripping each other's throats out, willingly or as a useful peon.