How does that work when the demographic is extremely economically disadvantaged and has no way to earn starting capital?
We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads).
Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender.
In any case, check out these links: https://theconversation.com/transgender-americans-are-more-l...
https://nwlc.org/income-security-is-elusive-for-many-transge...
Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family.
Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
I include women because of this:
> I anecdotally recall studies that found organizations with greater diversity deliver better financial results
AFAIK most of these studies focused on "women in boardrooms/leadership"
This is not always true for other minorities. A random black American isn't as likely to have been born into wealth as a random white American.