And the current world that we live in is NOT meritocratic, as half of the good talent is getting driven out of the industry.
The way to promote meritocracy IS to support women. Anti diversity initiatives and environments are unmeritocratic.
Would such an environment be "unmeritocratic"?
You don't even have to be as extreme as your example (nobody could work in the conditions that you mentioned).
Things like blind resume screening have been shown to significantly reduce hiring bias, and more companies should be doing it.
Also, the biggest discrimination problems in tech aren't even direct hiring discrimination problems. One big reason why companies are not very diverse is that companies tell their employees "refer your friends!" and then they are surprised when the white men only refer other white men.
Making efforts to specifically reach out to women, and making sure they apply to your company (without lowering any bars or anything), work very well in increasing diversity.
I work with several people remotely, have for months, have made paying projects, haven't heard their voices ever (or even seen photos of them in some cases).
Thinking on it, in some cases I literally don't know the person's ethnic background. One of my guys could be black or white or Indian and I wouldn't know. Even his name is a strange three-letter thing I haven't heard before. Huh.
So yeah, you can work like this.
So you seem to be simultaneously saying that 1) a system in which gender was a non-factor would be more meritocratic than contemporary systems; and 2) that a system in which women are given preferential treatment over men would be more meritocratic than contemporary systems; and 3) that a system in which women are given preferential treatment over men would be still more meritocratic than the hypothetical system.
Point 3 seems a natural conclusion given that you have argued for point 2; if point 3 were not true, it would seem logical to argue for point 1.
Am I misunderstanding you?