No, phenotype of a population being different is not social construction Ethnicity is a social construct, Nationality is a social construct. Race or Phenotype is not a social construct but a reality. When i mean by "ethinicity" being a social construct, the most iconic example is the US definition of ""hispanic/latino"". which makes no sense and no other country used that definition. Even literal nazis. Egon Albrecht was a Brazilian born luftwaffe iron cross ace. Richard Darre, a Argentine born minister. Both guys would be considered "oppressed minorities" on US. Not because they have anything genetically similar to "mestizos" and different than Germans but due a arbitrary ethnic definition.
That's rabbit hole. But, hey, I'm a rabbit.
Of course phenotypes are a sort of reality and, yes, different phenotypes emerged from different geographical conditions. But the decision to lump those together and attribute characteristics to them is a social construction. Just like "blondes are air heads" -- blonde hair is a reality, the decision to lump such people together and say people with this sort hair are 'air heads' is a human creation. Take the epicanthic eye fold -- the almond shaped eye. It's probably a cold weather adaptation. Which explains why you find it in Finland, Upper Canada and Siberia. But you also find it in the American southwest, scattered throughout Africa and the Philippines. Now if I start lumping everyone with epicanthic fold together in a group 'Asian', start attributing characteristics to them and begin treating them in different ways I'm using a social construction. Or, long story short, there is no essential difference between race / ethnicity / nationality. Some national borders are natural -- coast lines and such -- but we would agree that the nation state is a construction. Same is true of 'race' -- just because something has some natural features doesn't make it a natural category.
