Interesting hypothesis, but apparently not what happened:

"The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door."

http://abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to...

It's an interesting result, but is it accurate to call this "blinding"?

I feel like hiding demographics and actively deceiving people about demographics are different processes and should have different names?

Calling it "blinding" might not be accurate but, if anything, using deception, the study showed that men were discriminated against, not women -- contrary to what the initial hypothesis suggested.

Given "men typically giving themselves credit for work done in teams while women typically talk about the teams they were part of", then if you see a female CV it's more likely to be understated than if you see a male one. Which predicts two things:

* People aware of this will prefer otherwise identical CVs with female names (expectation is the underlying candidate is stronger, just more modest)

* Blind hiring will get you more men (because hiring managers can't correct for the male/female difference in self promotion anymore)

See, that is what is known as "sexism".