I know that statistics can be found that in some way correlate "diversity" with some financial metric or other being better. But that still is not definitive nor does it address the fundamental issue which is "what really is diversity, on what basis and features should it be measured, and WHY should we optimize for diversity as opposed to OTHER traits that potentially will correlate even more highly with other desirable metrics?"
Exactly. The greatest problem with this article is its underlying assumption that "diversity" is good by itself and that companies should pursue it. The author makes the point that she is not "diverse enough", while ignoring the fundamental issue that measuring "diversity" and showing that it is a goal worth pursuing by itself is non-trivial and problematic. The fact that she is counted as "diversity" while claiming that she isn't is exactly the reason why current societies' and organizations' extreme focus on and overvaluing of diversity is misguided.
The title of this article is click-bait and a complete oversimplification. I'm tired of seeing shit like this in HN and can't believe people are upvoting it.