You are incorrect. If 'race realism' has taken on that meaning in some discursive communities, understand that there are other understandings of the term.
Race realism is a descriptive claim that race has some basis in reality. There are no inherent normative implications to race realism.
Again, see the link in the preceding. In particular I recommend Chapter 3: "How to be a biological racial realist", by Quayshawn Spencer
Id refer you to the order of the definitions. Race realism as used in the scientific community may have a different connotation and definition, and is perhaps the reason why racists adopted the term, but no I'm not at all incorrect here about how the term is understood when used in a layperson context by people who are informed about race discussion.
> If 'race realism' has taken on that meaning in some discursive communities, understand that there are other understandings of the term.
Please remember that I said "race realism" and not race realism. And understand that I'm not uninformed here.
To reiterate, I'm not saying that scientists who research race are racist, I'm saying that if you research race and aren't a racist, you need to be extra careful to make that clear. Otherwise, as a pragmatic point, you'll end up like Dr. Hsu even if you are simply naive, and as a moral point, your naiveté will be used by actual racists to help legitimize their standpoint. That's why they self describe as "race realists", so they can say "look we're just like these other scientists who are studying race".
If you don't want your work and your authority to be coopted by racists, you need to proactively prevent them from doing so. Hsu did exactly the opposite and gifted actual racists his position and legitimacy. That's a problem no matter what his personal beliefs are.
The first:
> Please remember that I said "race realism" and not race realism.
Here is what you said:
>> Race realism is, by definition an extremist view.
The second:
> And understand that I'm not uninformed here
That you have to assert that, and actually go the trouble of asserting it at all, suggests you're willingly choosing to be incompletely informed.
Between the both of these, you don't seem to be engaging in good faith — you're attempting to manipulate. You are justly ignored.
> because their research will be used by "race realists" to push forth their theories.
> suggests you're willingly choosing to be incompletely informed.
I cannot imagine what strange interpretation of the universe leads you to conclude that.
That is, race realism isn't "race exists", but that "black people have lower average IQs due mainly to genetics and so the status quo today is explained perfectly by genetic, and not environmental causes".
Such views are contradicted by most available evidence.