> What about the much higher numbers of indians (especially in C level executive positions) in tech? Or Arabs?
What about them? (Mostly, what both of those show is what the structure of the immigration system favors for nationalities where there aren't lots of people who are eligible for family-based immigration.)
> Transgenders?
Mostly reflects that people of higher socioeconomic status and in social environments concentrated on particular geographic locations are more likely to primed to accept.(or, viewed another way, less strongly conditioned to deny) transgender identity, and that both of those correlate with onramps to the tech field. Not that that is germane in any way to racism since gender identity isn't a race/ethnicity.
> Neurodivergents?
Also aren't a race/ethnicity and so aren't germane.
> Iranians?
See above notes about Indians and Arabs.
> Muslims?
Aren't a race, but also see above notes about Arabs and Iranians (which apply to lots of other places where Muslim immigrants come from.)
> At what point would tech not be racist?
I never said tech was racist, I said that “some races are overrepresented” isn't counterevidence to racism but, absent evidence for some other explanation for the overrepresentation, supporting evidence.
But, that aside, obviously, at the point where no one was systematically disadvantaged in the field on the basis of their race.
> There is a lot of evidence pointing to a really diverse, generally progressive industry
No, there's not. There's a lot of evidence of an industry drawing principally from a narrow domestic racial and class pool, that on non-racial/class grounds overrepresents groups overrepresented in that pool, and which in addition to that domestic pool overepresents immigrants to the US on non-family bases because being in the industry is itself highly advantageous to employment-based entry into the US.