If that's there attitude then fuck them. You can guess which demographic they are talking about.
What's wrong with reviewing hiring processes to determine if they're excluding a demographic that contains individuals who would have done well in the role?
[0] https://cate.blog/2019/05/15/addressing-hiring-gaps-through-...
EDIT: The tl;dr for the article is that they're doing research on "how the people you didn’t hire would have done".
That's not what was said. Nothing in that quote implies "we will hire zero men".
I already quoted....
"We'd like a more diverse pool of applicants" does not mean "we'd like a pool of applicants with zero of <over-represented demographic> in it".
It doesn't even mean they want less of that demographic at all. It can (and likely should) be read as wanting a larger applicant pool overall, adding in folks from demographics who simply aren't applying currently.
Are you sure about that? I don't think this is about equality at all. It's about her and her agenda. Forcing people into your pipeline to meet a soft quota is silly.
Yes.
If I look at my garden, and I say "gee, it's all yellow flowers... I'd like some red and purple ones, too", it's kinda nutty to think I'm saying "I'm going to rip out all the yellow flowers and burn them".
Nevertheless, if the demographic profile of their hires doesn't correspond to the demographics of the population they're embedded in, it's reasonable to question whether 1) they're unfairly excluding people and 2) the extent to which the people they're excluding could have contributed.
That's why they're doing the survey? To find out if that's true, and if so, why it's true?
> Do we need to match the population in the first place?
If trans folks have statistically similar job abilities to non-trans folks, a disparity in hiring may indicate some other discriminatory / disparate factors that can be fixed. They might even be entirely unintentional.
That's why you do the research.
The extent to which things don't match is worth looking into. Historically such mismatches have more often been due to unequal opportunity than to other causes.