There are many studies about significant differences between twins caused by a single gene expression. There are studies about differences in physical properties, mental abilities and inherited diseases linked to genes of ethnic/racial groups - I believe the Ashkenazi case is the most popular, but there are others. And there are numerous studies about male/female differences - for example, in expressiveness of agression, average temperament and different cooperate/defect-style decisions in game theory and econometrics experiments.
But it all is irrelevant - the whole concept of gender/race/etc equality is that it is grossly unfair to use group-membership to judge individuals, and we should evaluate each person on her/his own merits.
The problem is that if you really do proper scientific examination of mental capabilities between genders and races you might not like the results. Results might turn out to be ugly and incompatible with the modern democracy. What will we do then?
We think people should be treated equally not because they are the same, but because they deserve equal consideration. Women are people and they deserve to be treated as such. Frankly the way I see it the cost of dehumanising half the population is far higher than potentially employing people who belong to a group that has on average less 'mental capabilities' than another.
Further unless your study shows that all men have stronger 'mental capabilities' than all women* it still makes sense to evaluate on a case by case bases and not generalisations, even if we only think about hiring the 'best' person for the job. To pass over someone who is talented because they happen to be the same gender as people who had a lower average score in some intelligence test doesn't make sense even thinking only about getting the best person for the job.
Sounds like you'd like to ignore the science to the contrary and just rely on your gut.
You're entitled to that, but I've found science to have a lot of usefulness.
For what it's worth, I think one of the points of the blog post is that this bias is more difficult to spot than Claudus's statement would imply, and I tend to agree with that.
The problem is generally that the people who do so ask and answer them on an individual level, using an unhealthy amount of selection bias.
From a link in the article:
Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply unsuitable for orchestras
I think that "simply unsuitable for orchestras" is vague and unquantifiable, but "smaller techniques" and "more temperamental" seem like assertions that could be challenged.
I have a general concept of what "smaller technique" means, is this something that is difficult to measure in a standard audition? Do female musicians in fact have "smaller technique" in general?
Are female musicians "more temperamental" than male musicians in general? Is there a male equivalent of a "diva", if not does that support the assertion that female musicians are more temperamental? Can you determine how temperamental someone is from a blind audition? Is temperament a valid reason to not hire someone?
To me, these senior conductors, scientists, etc. are asserting that, in general, women differ from men in certain dimensions that factor into hiring decisions but are not detectable in initial screening process.
If you really want to end sexism, I feel like these sorts of questions need to be asked and answered. My observation of the subject is that many people have an intuition, gut feeling, opinion formed from personal experience, etc. that men and women in general have innate differences that make men (or women) more suitable for certain functions.
The ONLY way that gender bias will ever end is to challenge these ideas and in fact show that these innate differences do not exist.
On the other hand, if gender differences do exist, then fighting gender bias is an eternal struggle that will never end. It is human nature to min / max and game the system.