> When you get to the point where such a definition makes sense, you are outside of a reasonable discourse. Racism ceases to have any meaning as a term.
A definition that makes sense and has no meaning. I don't know about racism, but you certainly seem to have lost sight of what "meaning" means.
I've never had any trouble understanding this definition of racism. When I was young and stupid, I thought myself extremely clever for seeing instances of reverse racism, but this was because I understood nothing about racism except that MLK Jr. gave this nice speech a long time ago and now bad things no longer happened. I thought it was this magical thing where there were black people and there were white people and I was yellow except not really so it was kinda weird and I didn't understand why the red people didn't seem very red.
Then I grew up and started understanding how power moves and manifests. It's very fuzzy. You don't see mathematical equations about how the election of the POTUS changes opinion in the Middle East, because we haven't figured out how to model that. Our understanding of power is extremely weak, compared to something like how many atoms of hydrogen are found in a molecule of water. To make this extremely stark, we don't understand power. We have a feel. An intuitive notion. That is all we have.
We do not have explicit forms of racial discrimination to any significant degree. But we do still have significant power imbalances that map suspiciously well to racial divides. These power imbalances are virtually impossible to quantify, because we have no idea how to do it, but we can infer them from statistical trends. We've chosen to call this racism.
That's language drift for you. There are reasons not to call it racism. Apologists, such as yourself, have enumerated a good number of them for us. But there are also good reasons to call it racism. First among these is that we do not need the more generic definition any longer. English speakers generally have difficulty finding instances of chattel slavery or explicit segregation laws. In both of these cases, we have more specific terms anyways. Second is that it signals the correct emotional reaction. Most people are offended when called a racist, because they've been trained to understand it is a bad thing to be. Used properly, it forms a foundation to change behavior. (And before you say that it is sometimes used improperly, this would be true of a different term as well; but a different term would not have the same, useful emotional charge.) Third is that the issue remains one of "dividing people into groups called races which contain people with identifiably similar traits". The generic definition still actually applies, but it does so more weakly.
I'm sure you take issue with all of these, but really? The definition could be improved. That doesn't make it meaningless, as demonstrated by the many people who use it in that capacity without a problem. It does make it difficult, as demonstrated by the many people who seem incapable of understanding it.
(Also, loleconomics.)