Agree about a lot of right-wing essentialism being scientifically illiterate and selectively applied, particularly manosphere stuff. I can see why many would prefer the happy 'everyone is the same' delusion if they think that is the alternative. But I don't think abandoning anti-essentialism means we need to give control of public policy to basedgroyper1488.

My proposal for how public policy should change would primarily be to stop the more egregious forms of anti-essentialism, rather than to start proactively crafting public policy according to different group tendencies. So you could say I'm an anti-anti-essentialist rather than an essentialist.

One specific thing I'd like to see an end to is the assumption where if a policy is found to have some disparate impact, the policy must be wrong, rather than that there really is a group difference. A recent example would be the the AI facial recognition trial that was paused because it identified black people more than other ethnicities: theguardian.com/technol…. This could be enacted via an amendment/replacement to the equality act whereby if a group really does behave differently, accusations of racism etc cannot be used to change a policy.

On the violent crime in general, again, it wouldn't be deciding based on demographics to surveil AA neighbourhoods, this would happen naturally if there was more crime. I would like to prevent the police being forced to stop doing this due to racism accusations.

On immigration policy yes, I'd like to see it be informed by genuine anthropology, both the dangers of producing multi-ethnic societies, and of the stickiness of cultural differences.

Re: men working in nurseries, I'd be open to banning that if the risks are deemed too high. With child custody, I think you probably don't need to rely on group tendencies as you can look at the individual parents involved, and as far as I know, custody does already default to the mother unless there's a good reason not to.