I wouldn't really call it the "wisdom" of the era. It's much more defined by the lack of wisdom than by its presence, meaning we do a whole lot of short-term work on confirming biases and antagonizing and only on larger time-scales do we see the power of refinements to the scientific method. "Current" science for any value of "current" is majorly fraught with bias and vast divergences, and time puts a low-pass filter on the concepts which become over {years, decades, centuries} cemented as "truths". And thankfully, even on long timescales there are people willing to put in the work to challenge assumptions and refine the scientific method so that we, as a civilization, strive for improvement in spite of/against our prejudices.

In today's age we do still acknowledge and notice differences which need to be accounted for, and correlate with skin color or whatever people call "race"[0]. This isn't racism, because racism is scientifically unsound, because racism is not a science or an academic field, it's a prejudice associated with beliefs. Science has been done by human beings and human beings carry prejudice, but science itself doesn't. What we see nowadays is an increase in useful acknowledgement of differences (useful in the sense that if we are blind to these differences we will negatively impact people, for example by disregarding genetic differences between people and treating them sub-optimally[1].

Whatever bullshit was sold as being the difference between whites and blacks wasn't scientific as much as it was the expression of prejudice made to sound scientific. Phrenology did the same with whoever society wanted to see as criminals (unsurprisingly, that would usually be a mix of the non-whites-of-the-time, the poor and the disenfranchised). On top of legitimizing prejudice, it also prevented doing actual work to help everyone equally.

There's no reality where we'll equate racism as the prejudice it is, with gender studies as the current attempt our world is making at understanding genders. There might however be many high-frequency oscillations in papers published today that will be filtered out by the field or fields benefiting from acknowledging differences and features that will stand the test of time and coming out of the current field of gender studies. You might say that many current claims around the emerging field will be looked at with distance and judged implausible, but certainly the idea of incorporating an understanding of genders and their differences is not something that in its entirety will be looked at as "implausible and frowned upon".

Because racism is prejudice and beliefs, and gender studies is an interdisciplinary academic field of study.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/06/why-are-h...

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692342/

edit: I also realize now that you would have had a slightly better claim if you had put phrenology where you put racism - with the difference that phrenology was never really more than a pseudo-scientific extrapolation departing from science to advance oppression of others whereas gender studies constantly faces scrutiny to reinforce scientific claims and is a proponent of empathy. Pretty diametrically opposed goals and methods, ultimately.