The inherent problem with that concept is that it doesn't stop. Why should we take into account sexuality but not height? Given the infinite number of variables that exist between people there could be any number of variables added into the equation - who gets to be the arbiter of such a thing. Furthermore, who gets to decide what constitutes some of these identifiers? As we move into what is turning into a linguistic salad, any number of people could rock up with self-defined sexualities, disabilities and ideological perspectives. I could, for example, be the only anthropomorphic, polyamorous, left-of-centre self identified Penguin with long-sightedness and a phobia of moths applying to Cambridge. I suspect I will be. You may say that is ridiculous - and you'd be right, but it really depends on the context in which such things are argued. I could argue it. I probably would.

I think it's probably best to stick to measuring intelligence via academic potential, potentially socioeconomic class at a push - and leave all forms of social engineering at the door, be that nepotism, legacy or affirmative action of any kind. :o)