All im hearing is buzzwords with no basis. You're going have to explain it as your argument revolves around "better suited" "best people" or "higher quality".
Are you failing to understand the words themselves or the application of them? I would have thought that their meaning in this context is self-evident, otherwise perhaps you'd better steer away from this strand of the discussion. Any reference to the selection process inevitably leads to the use of one or other of these phrases, otherwise how else do you describe how one person is offered the job over another? Perhaps you'd like to offer suggestions for easier-to-understand phrases.
You're not wrong to say that there are issues with the recruitment process and that sometimes a "rogue" does slip through. I've seen it happen. However, that objection has nothing to do with the gender of applicants and can happen to any person from any background. But it's not the recruitment and selection process that's really under scrutiny here.
To pick up some earlier points, I disagree that any efforts to recruit more women/BAME staff would be divisive, as the tales of how well people integrate into the job attests. If there is any divisiveness it is simply down to the inherent bigotry and chauvinism in the grade. Any suggestions that
"she only got the job because she's a woman" should be immediately countered with
"she only got the job because she passed the selection process, completed the training and was passed competent, the same as you and I".
Also, no there is no objective reason why the industry should be looking to do this. But then there is no objective reason
not to do it either, so why not? It seems eminently sensible to me to try to gain the widest possible reach.
