Frankly, because the meaning and purpose of "diversity" has been corrupted to the point that it actually causes issues like the one described. Similar to the corruption of the word "racism".
I think you're missing the point by assuming git branch renaming is the primary (only?) cost. Diversity (meaningful diversity of thought and opinion, that is) actually has business value. That's the reason it was pushed so hard from the top way back in the day, it was seen as a means to improve product offerings and problem solving processes.
These days "diversity" is nothing more than a euphemism for weird racial, sexual orientation, and gender fetishes. These "diverse" workplaces are, ironically, echo chambers for the same patterns of thought based around the idea that superficial characteristics like gender and skin color are meaningful predictive traits
I think you're missing the point by assuming git branch renaming is the primary (only?) cost. Diversity (meaningful diversity of thought and opinion, that is) actually has business value. That's the reason it was pushed so hard from the top way back in the day, it was seen as a means to improve product offerings and problem solving processes.
These days "diversity" is nothing more than a euphemism for weird racial, sexual orientation, and gender fetishes. These "diverse" workplaces are, ironically, echo chambers for the same patterns of thought based around the idea that superficial characteristics like gender and skin color are meaningful predictive traits