I also don't like how the discussion is framed because it tries to put a label on everyone (typically based on either gender, race or disability)... But that is

I also don't like how the discussion is framed because it tries to put a label on everyone (typically based on either gender, race or disability)... But that is a very narrow-minded way of thinking about diversity. I think it's important to give extra attention to those who are disadvantaged but we should handle it on a case-by-case basis - Because not everyone who is different and disadvantaged will fit under a specific race/gender/disability label - We shouldn't leave those 'unlabelled' people out of the equation (I think that most disadvantaged people cannot be labelled - They are invisible minorities). For example, studies have shown that attractive people get paid more on average than unattractive ones... So maybe we should also give extra consideration to ugly people... Or introverts, or people who have English as a second language... Or who come from a different country... Or had a bad childhood, etc... There are so many different categories; you cannot look at individuals in terms of their superficial qualities only; you have to consider the individual as a whole. For example, you cannot give special treatment to someone just because they're a woman (without also considering other factors) - What if that woman has a $10 million dollar trust fund and tons of social connections? Maybe she doesn't actually need any special treatment at all - It changes the whole story. I think that gender, race and disability should be considered, but you shouldn't look at them in isolation from everything else; I think that doing so is in itself is a form of discrimination against all unlabelled disadvantaged individuals. At the root of this discussion lies the problem that companies are not good at considering people as individuals.