However, did you even read the article that you linked to?? Someone posted a link showing that if you blindfold people (so they just listen to how people play), you end up with more women in orchestras. The Ashe Dryden article is about how using open source contributions as a sole barometer of 'merit' leaves an awful lot of talented people out in the cold.
The only point where she mentions anything close to your point is when she says that many female developers use androgynous sounding names and won't put pictures of themselves online.
My claim is that most activists in tech don't really believe that bias is the cause of underrepresentation here. As evidence for that, observe how few such activists actually favor purely meritocratic hiring.
a) Ask for code samples.
b) Pair as an interview.
c) Hire as a contractor before you make an offer of employment.
She does not dispute the existence of bias, rather she makes the point that valuing open source so heavily makes technology less of a meritocracy.
The entire article is about how using github (i.e. evaluating code with the human absent, i.e. the closest thing [1] we currently have to blind auditions) is "biased" against women.
[1] Maybe we'll have something closer when starfighter comes out. I look forward to it.
http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-an...
In contrast, I think most of those who oppose the diversity activists (e.g. myself) strongly favor such approaches ("death by standardized brainteaser", hire by github, work sample tests).