> if you require it as a standard of evidence for acknowledging the existence of sexism you will fulfill the function of protecting and perpetuating sexism.

Whoa, what are you insinuating here?

I don't think I'm insinuating anything, it is stated very clearly.

I'm afraid it isn't. Your comment seems to imply that if the evidence were to be collected it would not be in favor of the "diversity hires" thus perpetuating sexism in the workplace. If this isn't the case, could you care to unpack why collecting data on this is actually a bad thing?

Nowhere did I say collecting data is a bad thing. I am sure data would support the allegations. I said requiring this type of data before taking action fulfills the function of protecting and perpetuating sexism, because it is an impossible bar to clear.

> I said requiring this type of data before taking action fulfills the function of protecting and perpetuating sexism

How do you take action to fix something if you don't even know if/why/how it's broken ? It's pure madness to pass feel good equality of outcome laws and never checking on the data to see if it has a positive effect or not.

Not only that, but it is impossible to tell if the initiative fulfilled it's outcome. This allows for endless riddance.

You do know whether it's broken, because you have people telling you. Testimony is evidence, and it's used for making almost all business decisions.

Go ahead and collect data to see whether your policies are working. A much better world compared to the usual, where people are asked to show the data and zero resources are provided to gather that data.

> You do know whether it's broken, because you have people telling you.

As many people are saying the opposite. So what now ? We chose the side that shouts "inequality !" the loudest ?

> Go ahead and collect data

It's illegal in my country.

If someone is hired on your team that's allegedly under-qualified (at the time of hire) and isn't able to earn their stripes at work (despite being given the opportunity to do so over a long enough time horizon) then they have no business complaining that they're not getting work that delights them. This argument applies to literally anybody regardless of their sex/race/age/orientation.

GP is basically advocating the collection and use of data to verify and possibly correct any manifestation of this alleged unconscious bias. Just because the data isn't perfect doesn't mean it's useless. You seem to be OK with pre-meditated "correction" without looking at the data. You even seem to think that the collected data would vindicate managers of allocating "less glamorous work" to the non-high performers.