And similarly, I know plenty of people who consider gender-inclusive policies as a form of psuedoscience too (in that they don't give it much credence).
Diversity is quite literally the reason life still exists after billions of years and five mass extinction catastrophes. It is the foundation for the predominant economic system in human society as well as all of the technological and scientific progress we've made. Hell, you can't even really have cultural (in the broadest sense) progress without a diversity of ideas and opinions, let alone a functioning, stable democracy.
I'm skeptical of race- and gender-inclusive policies because they're often blindly implemented and detrimental to their goals but diversity has shown itself to be not just important, but vital, to the long term success of any large, complex system, whether it be the Apollo program or our planet's ecosystem. I'd love to hear rational arguments against, however.
> diversity has shown itself to be not just important, but vital, to the long term success of any large, complex system, whether it be the Apollo program or our planet's ecosystem.
No, it's causation. The probability that everything goes right in a sufficiently complex system is zero and the probability that a single failure will cause runaway feedback loops or cascading side effects is extremely high, which causes a stable system to go unstable and makes total failure almost inevitable. Without diversity, you can't recover from these failure modes (drastic changes in the ecosystem causing extinction in the case of evolution, limits of physics or economics causing a dead end in science and engineering, changes in the rest of the economy causing centrally planned economies to fall apart, etc).