Let's run an example. The best qualified candidate is a white male. The second best is not. The second best qualified one automatically gets the job based on race, and the white male can shove his qualifications where the Sun doesn't shine. How is this not racism in action?
The problem with that example is the simplification, the assumption that in a position that requires a huge ammount of very wide and different skills there's just "the best candidate". What happens is there's a hole bunch of skills, interviews, tests, whatever, and at the end someone comes on top.
Now you'll say "what if the person that comes out on top of the list is a white male?" Well for this position, given the historical lack of representation we'll assign more weight to being in the demographic we're targeting so we'll pick the second best (which is actually the best because he got an extra hipotethical half point in the demographic criteria).
And here I guess we'll agree to disagree, you can see this as the same thing you're saying/semantics, I see it as a light finger on the scales to create and inspire more opportunity to historical disadvantaged demographics to eventually achieve equality. Just like legacy admissions (not just to university but using the term in general) are a criteria, a disadvantaged demographic can also be a criteria, in this case the one that bumps it over the finish line.
And I find this last point really important because imo saying "best qualified candidate gets disqualified for the second based on demographic" is a huge simplification when we're talking about expert positions where there's a stupid ammount of considerations that are taken. It's not like the "second best" is any dummy that fits the required demographic. In reality it will be someone that is for all intents on par with your supposed "best candidate" (and bunch of other top choices for that matter), and gets the deciding "coin flip" vote because it fits the wanted demographic.
Firsts will never end. If you give up being first, someone else (someone less enlightened than you) will take your place.
That's not the kind of firsts I'm talking about, I'm talking about first <insert specific demographic>, not first best in the field. We'll eventually run out of realistic first <insert specific demographic>.
Males are the majority engineers because the male brain is wired that way. Females are the majority cosmeticians because that's what females are interested in. This is how society balances itself in equality of opportunity, which is not the same as equality of outcome, where we force a certain demographic representation in working groups, regardless of qualification. Here's a better explanation of what I mean from someone more qualified than I am:
I think that's an entirely different discussion (one where I don't believe in wired that way, there's a huge ammount of conditioning that goes on throughout our entire lifes). I completely agree with you that society balances itself in equality of opportunity and not outcome, but that opportunity has to first exist and gender/racial discrimination have been historical undeniable factors that are yet to be completely eliminated.
To be fair, I've enjoyed this conversation. It's the differences one learns the most from. If nothing else, then the fact that we're different. 
