Where can I find them?

I'm not plugged into these networks, but Cato will probably be a good start.

apparently thinks that homosexuality is a disease

Kinda. As far as I remember, homosexuality is an interesting thing because it's not very heritable (something like 20% for MZ twins), but also tends to persist in all cultures and ages which points to a biological aspect. It should be heavily disfavoured by evolution, but apparently isn't. So it's an evolutionary puzzle. Cochran's theory -- which he freely admits lacks any evidence in its favour -- is that there is some pathogen which operates in utero or at a very early age and which pushes the neurohormonal balance towards homosexuality.

This is clearly spitballing in the dark and Cochran, as far as I know, doesn't insist that it's The Truth. It's just an interesting alternative that everyone else ignores.

scientific racism

Generally translated as "I don't like the conclusions which science came up with" :-D

I might or might not disagree with you politically, but I believe myself to be capable of distinguishing normative statements (this is what it is) from prescriptive ones (this is what it should be).

I don't wanna pick a random paper from one of them

I am not expecting you to go critique their science. Their names were a handwave in the direction of what kind of heritability studies we're talking about.

might actually agree with my broader point (about the possibility of going into fields and pointing out inadequacies if you know what you're doing, due to the fields being inadequate)

It's a bit more complicated. Scientific fields have a lot of diverse content. Some of it is invariably garbage and it's not hard to go into any field, find some idiots, and point out their inadequacies. However it's not a particularly difficult or worthwhile activity and certainly one that can be done by non-philosophers :-D In particular, during the last decade or so people who understand statistics have been having at lot of fun at the expense of domain "experts" who don't.

I would generally expect that in every field there would be a relatively small core of clueful people who are actually pushing the frontier and a lot of deadweight just hanging on. I would also expect that it would be difficult to identify this core without doing a deep dive into the literature or going to conferences and actually talking to people.

However the thing is, I like empirical results. So if you claim to be able to go into a field and "fix massive errors", I don't think that merely pointing at the idiots and their publications is going to be sufficient. Fixing these errors should produce tangible results and if the errors are massive, the results should be massive as well. So where is my cure for aging? frozen and fully revived large mammals? better batteries, flying cars, teleportation devices, etc.?