Yes, my company has a goal of "at least 50% females in IT in all positions and at all levels". I have absolutely no idea how they calculated 50% as a good target for the business and why "at least 50%", but these targets have a lot of emotional loads and zero real world value, so I don't try anymore to understand.

I've heard from a Googler that yes, they want the workforce to match the outside world. With that in mind read https://diversity.google/annual-report/#!#_what-would-it-tak... and "That’s why in 2019 we challenge ourselves and others to think differently so that we widen pathways to tech. Only then will we reflect our consumer base, and truly elevate our ability to build products for everyone."

So Google wants to reflect the consumer base, so I guess we can take that to mean ~50% female devs?

Most corporate statements of diversity goals I have ever seen take the simplistic position (in some form or another) that <x>, <y>, or <z> statistic "should mirror the representation of the general population." It seems to be an accepted truism that this equals unbiased selection and equity.

It is very politically unacceptable to object to this intellectually lazy reasoning.

> So Google wants to reflect the consumer base

Which includes a good portion of extremists of all kinds, illiterates, drug dealers, etc. And of course, half of it is made of people with below average IQ.

You want your company to employ the people that are best at the job, not a cross-section of the population along some randomly chosen axis.

When I hear statements like that, I always wonder if they try to hire 2% pedophiles, too. About 2% of people in the real world are supposed to be pedophiles, so if they want to reflect the real world, they should aim to hire them.

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

arguing in bad faith seems unnecessary when there's so much authentically wrong with their view

It's not about bad faith, it is about showing the absurdity of aiming for representation of people by sexual preferences.

I don't see that as bad faith. Companies have weird diversity goals to do with physical features of their bodies and sexual preferences. Pedophiles are just part of that. They happen to be a marginalized group, but that's the thing about being marginalized, you get pushed to the margins and not advocated for by big companies and popular blogs.

Perhaps if you went back to the days of women's liberation and somebody said "what next, gays?" they'd get dismissed too. That might be right, but it's possible they really saw it as a serious issue before its time.

You're outside the current Overton window, quick, hide!

Even so why do diversity weights exist at all? Should it not be based on performance or results? I understand the notion that people can be biased resulting in biased hirings, but why does that insist we must twist the bias in the opposite direction? Both sides of this fight are equally guilty of not hiring on the right principles which is how well can a person do a job.

The article claimed that 50% is the goal.

And if people aiming for diversity don't have 50% as a goal, somehow I have never seen them name another number that they would consider satisfactory.

any big , resourceful company should