The core of the issue is the question about why subjects like gender studies and other humanities are disregarded compared to subjects like biology, when both have just as much importance and intellectual support behind them.
I am not exactly sure what you’re referring to by “importance and intellectual support”, but the idea that these neo-sociology courses can be compared to hard sciences is bonkers, to put it bluntly.
Any neo-sociology course, like gender studies, can be rooted uniquely only in one area; that’s actual survey data. Everything else that matters is rooted in the biological distinctions that make, for example, women different from me.
And anything other than THAT is subjective opinion.
Bio, OTOH, uses no survey data (which has variance from study to study) has no root science other than other hard sciences, and works overtime via the scientific method to remove subjective opinion from the mix.
Basically, why was diversity discussed from a biological lens at the panel? Where was the panel discussing from the lens of the humanities?
The answer is above.
An emphasis on exclusively one side of research, the biological, is inherently harmful because it lacks the depth needed to fully understand what new research may imply for the world.
What is inherently harmful is suggesting that a soft science is as valuable as a hard science. There’s a reason why biologists go to med school and 80% of gender studies majors work as barristas or some other such nonsense; because that’s an accurate reflection on their ability to contribute to society.