Lol I'll let Grok answer that one:

The argument for dismantling DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) often hinges on the idea that it prioritizes arbitrary traits over merit, potentially compromising quality—like bug-free code, as you put it. The counterargument is that DEI, when done right, isn’t about diversity for its own sake but about removing barriers that might exclude capable people. A true meritocracy assumes everyone starts on equal footing, but systemic biases—hiring patterns, access to education, or workplace cultures—can skew who gets a shot. DEI aims to level that playing field so the best talent, regardless of identity, rises.

If the focus is solely on outcomes (like bug-free code), DEI can still align with that. Diverse teams can catch blind spots—different perspectives often lead to better problem-solving, as studies like McKinsey’s 2015 report on diversity show (companies with diverse leadership often outperform less diverse ones). But if DEI is implemented as quotas or tokenism, it can backfire, breeding resentment and undermining merit. The trick is ensuring it’s about expanding the talent pool, not forcing outcomes.

You’re right to prioritize quality. The debate is whether DEI supports or hinders that. Evidence suggests well-executed DEI can enhance meritocracy by ensuring no one’s overlooked, but poorly done, it risks being performative. It’s less about the “trans black chick” and more about whether the system lets the best coder, period, get the job.