Let me tell you about DEI hires.
EVERY trans person I've worked with on technical teams was EXTREMELY qualified and was one of the most technical people on the team, if not THE most technical.
Some would have you believe we're only hired because somehow a business doesn't want the best person doing the job because of DEI. Yet I've never worked for a company that said "Hire a less qualified <X> over a more qualified <Y>" with ONE exception (see next reply).
When I worked for State government, they did give preference to a marginalized group: US military veterans. If a veteran did nearly as good, but not as good, as the top applicant, we hired the veteran. It was law.
Somehow when I see people complaining about DEI, they aren't saying that was a problem. I'll also note that you didn't see women, trans people, or Black people bitching that some white cis male veteran got hired! We had better things to do with our time.
But because I know how hard it is for marginalized people to get hired, I'm also VERY pleased when I go to a hospital and a woman doctor is treating me. I know that no matter how awful of a doctor she may be, she's probably not as bad as the most awful man in her medical school class! Because she had to work harder to get there. Indeed, she might be quite good.
If I had a trans doc, I'd be thrilled. To keep a job as a doctor while trans, they would have to be a hell of a doctor.
Maybe you've worked with an unqualified trans person, woman, or Black person, or some other kind of marginalized person.
There is a key question though:
Have you ever worked with an unqualified white, cis, straight middle-aged man?
Do you think all white, cis, straight middle-aged men are incompetent and preferentially hired because of their identity rather than qualifications?
That's key. White men don't represent all w/ their identity. But somehow an incompetent marginalized person does?
Joelle
Timothy Wynn