[callahad]

There's a layer of indirection that I don't think people are considering: The OP is wanting to build an incubator for transpeople. The startups it funds will likely pass your test and focus on being the best at what they do.

The only difference is that they had an additional funding avenue due to their founders' identities.

The real question is why that additional avenue should be available at all, and I think there are at least two good reasons:

1. Allison has compelling social motivation, meaning that she doesn't need to maximize her financial return to achieve her goals, so long as the investments are sustainably profitable.

2. If there's an institutional bias against funding transpeople, her willingness to provide funding may work to her financial benefit.

I have my reservations, but they're not related to the target audience.

[angersock]

The problem I see is that I can either get the service from the best of the set of transpeople, or from the set of people who offer the service (of which the former is a subset).

I'm unsure that choosing gender identity as a defining factor is going to help anyone market themselves as the best--especially when there are significant social biases in place.

[intellection]

Some people want to market to specific groups for good reasons. Is it possible some great services and ideas can come from smaller groups? Maybe even better service, better designed for a specialized, smaller group?

Demonstrated in our thread is intense negativity, lack of recognition and anti-support towards some people's gender identity -- and even a resistance towards writing about it.

If significant social biases exists, and alternative support networks remove social biases, is it potentially helpful?

If great technological people can be identified within specific groups better than before, why resist?