I plan on writing a full rebuttal to this article and would be happy to link back to this when I do, because honestly I have a lot of problems with it. In part this is because while I see the intention of encouraging more women to be active is there, it also includes some generally harmful assumptions and assertions that actually reinforces the problem. But in brief, I have one priority comment on the following section:

“Our general policy is that we don’t consider the race, sex, religion, or any other factor of the speaker to play a part in our selection process.” If organizers are pressured to start selecting women speakers based on the fact that they are women, it would invalidate policies like the one referenced above."

This statement suggests a concept of blindness to diversity, which unfortunately is neither an anti-discrimination policy nor one committed to equal opportunity. By saying that the background of a speaker doesn't matter, that the alternative experiences of living in the world as female, or as black, Hispanic, Asian, gay, transgender, disabled, all of the above, etc. doesn't potentially contribute to a unique and essential point of view, you ultimately silence that point of view. The problem is saying that "it doesn't matter" when no, actually, it really does matter. And ultimately, those who are relegated to the margins systematically in the first place remain on the sideline. Forever and ever in a damaging cycle of unequal opportunity.

Which is why policies like this NEED to be invalidated. Until these "blind" policies are also recognized as damaging, the richness of diversified experiences will never be able to inform and educate within the walls of familiarity. The answer is simple and it's this: Yes, we (men and women) should all be actively working to ensure diverse representation at the table.