As you wrote: Which means, of course, that humans are presently in the process of evolutionary convergence due to interbreeding, not divergence. And add to that that modernization has created more similar selection pressures world-wide than existed in the past, and that is most certainly the case.
Though I think you go a little too far in asserting, “Racists, of course, try to make race mean ‘species.’ ‘Anti-racists’ deny that humans are divided into races at all.” Racism usually doesn’t get that far, and just decides that for some reason one group conceived of as a race ought to be maltreated (or at least differently treated) solely on the basis of group membership, usually for the perceived benefit of one’s own group, also conceived of as a race. Nor does anti-racism need to deny the existence of races, just regard every human being as uniquely valuable in a way that supports a presumption of equality before the law.
Unfortunately self-proclaimed ‘anti-racism’ has now become, itself, a species of racism what wishes to maltreat people of European (and often Asian) ancestry, and the only actual anti-racists left are Christian humanists (cf. MLK, Jr.’s remark about the content of character) and classical liberals (called conservatives in America).
When I used the term “anti-racist” I was referring to the variety that is itself a type of racism. What J. Derbyshire calls ethno-masochism. Except that many of the practicioners use it as a weapon against a race other than their own.
This type anti-racism is similar to anti-anti-communism. It’s more of a ploy to hide pro-racism or pro-communism.
Your first definition of “anti-racism” I agree with completely.
“Racists, of course, try to make race mean ‘species’”
Should have said “something like species.” They assign more divergence than actually exists.