I think it has more to do with what job/task you are referring to, and also how race/gender exclusions in certain jobs impact an economy.

 I'd explain to you how having a diverse workgroup positively impacts a handful of multi-billion dollar profitable businesses, but first we need to establish what You think "increases performance" means.

 I know with my business if I had all middle-aged white males working for me I would be bankrupt.  They simply aren't integrated enough in the environments I work in to provide the cultural information needed to get the job done efficiently.  Another example is the medical center, it is beneficial to have both male and female staff, simply put females can do some jobs more efficiently than males, for instance conducting rape-kits, talking to children, survivors of abuse, MVA victims etc.  Queer staff have higher return treatments from queer patients across the board.

 Hispanic female staff are typically more productive in physical therapy with Hispanic female patients.  There is a ton of cultural components and psychology there, so it is beneficial to have a diverse staff in those environments.

 That doesn't mean White, straight, males, or Black, straight, males can't do the job, it just means that patients respond to them less efficiently from a healthcare results perspective.

"Hiring someone BECAUSE of their their Identity instead of their abilities is stupid."

 I agree here.  In the physical therapy example it wouldn't make sense to hire a Hispanic female based off that alone instead of a more qualified physical therapist.

 Eventually though I think there is a line, if out of 10 staff 9 are Asian males, it might be a good idea to hire one female, even if another Asian male is a qualified candidate.  But to hire a female, or a queer Asian male just because they "diversify" the group, that doesn't make sense.

That is wrong
If they are SKILLED, in doing that job, they will be just as efficient.
Regardless of,  the color of their skin, sexual preference, heritage, etc. etc. etc.’

 Incorrect.  The person's SKILL often times has little to do with how another human will initially perceive them.  For instance most young females that are raped or systematically abused sexually are victims of males.

 No male, no matter how SKILLED at inserting collection swabs into a vag!na and anus can convince a 13 year old sexual assault victim to comply as well as a female can.  The psychological component of sexual assault and abuse is not something the average male nurse can overcome in the very short time they have to collect evidence.  Maybe a male psychologist, over time, can change this, but time is not an option in this case.

 The SKILL is the same among the workers, but the customer so to speak is not.  So having a female on staff in an ER is probably a good idea.

 I agree that the SKILL level may be better from an experienced male, and if that is the exclusive evaluation then the male is the better choice.

 But if the evaluation is getting the rape-kit samples in the first place, the male may not be able to get them at all since the assault victim may not consent having another male inserting object into her, so in that case the male would not be the better choice.

What is your point, E?
If a guy wants to DO rape kits,something is WRONG.
Who would ever suggest a rape victim be handled by a man? If that is Done, I'm floored.
If she says it's cool, okay, but why would any man ever want to work on a rape victim in a way that makes her vulnerable? Because he CARES so much?.  Are you in Deep Dive mode, in search of The Rare Event that makes Hiring someone who has no skill reasonable or what?

What is your point, E?
If a guy wants to DO rape kits,something is WRONG.

 Not necessarily.  If that is the only way to collect evidence, then it may be appropriate.  


"Who would ever suggest a rape victim be handled by a man? If that is Done, I'm floored."

 If only males are selected for employment then the suggestion would be due to the desire for gathering evidence.  In this case, I would think you might hear something along the lines of, "I bet we could get this done if a woman were here".

 Again, the diversity impact is for a different kind of evaluation.  Not just "can this person do this job" but also, "should we have females working in the ER?"  I'd say yes, but I would not want to alter any qualification standards to get there.

 SKILL alone should not be the deciding factor in every scenario.  If two humans have the same SKILL, and no females are currently employed at a location where it is beneficial to hire females, then I would say it is ok to diversify the employee pool and hire the female.  

 Not a less SKILLED female, not a one that "does not know how to do the job".

 Yeah totally not beneficial to have females working in a hospital of the same skill levels as men.  What was I thinking.

I can see how it Could be beneficial if the object is to understand, predict, and adjust the direction of a company.

 But not an ED?

Eegore wrote on 03/14/23 at 10:53:55:

Perhaps you could read it again, instead of spinning.

A person knows the job and is qualified.
A Person who does not know the job and is not qualified.

Who will you choose,
the qualified one,
or the NOT qualified one.

Or will it be on the decisive;
'color of skin, sexual preference, sex, heritage, religion, etc. etc. etc.’