That's just semantic evasion. The worst kind of specious casuistry out there, glossed up to sound like some sort of pertinent and deep point when in reality it is just an obfuscation of the actual question.
Sure, the categories "white" and "black" are too simplistic and don't take into account the full extent of human genetic diversity, but this does not therefore mean that these distinctions are "arbitrary" or meaningless. To say that someone is "white" or "black" is essentially a statement about their ancestral haplogroup. We can say this with a very high degree of accuracy. Furthermore, to add in a caveat term like "African American", or "white British", is a further statement that increases the probability of someone identified as such as belonging to an even more specific stated haplogroup.
The question is not whether intelligence differs between humans as a result of "race", but whether human groups that can be demarcated roughly via geography and historically isolated evolution, differ in intelligence as a result of their geographic isolation from each other and their subsequent divergent evolution. The colloquial conception of "race" is an identifying variable used to demarcate groups, not a causative explanation for any underlying differences in native intelligence. That would clearly, if it exists, be a result of geographically isolated evolution.
The question really being asked here is "Is there any evidence that the descendants of humans who spent the last 100,000 years in Africa are equal in native intelligence to the descendants of humans who spent the last 100,000 years in Europe?", but instead of answering this question you've just chosen to pose a limp wristed "well no differences would be as a result of a loosely defined term like "race"", which just completely misses the point. Differences in intelligence would not be a result of "race", "race" is simply the colloquially used identifying variable used to discern between historically isolated human populations that may differ in intelligence due to that geographic isolation.
Why don't you answer that question? I'll bold it for you. Where is the evidence for the claim that populations that were geographically isolated from each other for almost 100,000 years of divergent evolution, in profoundly different climates with differing evolutionary selective pressures, all the while interbreeding with other non-homo sapiens hominids, should all end up with exactly the same capacity for native abstract intelligence?
We never get an answer to this question, instead we get endless Gouldian evasion tactics, semantic obfuscations (like your objection), and sociological casuistry.