Proponents of affirmative-action policies argue that the handicap offsets disabilities from the glass ceiling, discrimination / stereotype threat in the workplace/education pipeline. The calculus of what "balances out inequality" is imperfect, but arguably better than just having the disability.
How do you know that the disparity in women in the general population versus women in computer science is caused by the things you mentioned? How do you know that they have an equal interest and potential in this field than demographics who do not need special treatment? Will the value that these people provide be greater than what is expended to advantage them over other demographics who do not need special treatment? These are very serious and important questions you should be asking yourself when you decide to advantage certain people over others. I don't believe they have been answered.
For example, before orchestras started doing blind auditions, there were far fewer women than men. After, the proportions are much closer to equal. Sports is a related example- there are clearly plenty of women interested in athletics, despite society pushing them out in the past. The article itself compares computing to astronomy- I find it unlikely that the differences between the two are wide enough to result in the difference we see demographics.
So at this point, it seems to me the burden of proof falls on the idea that women aren't discriminated against. Time and again society has tried to explain away a disparity by attributing it to intrinsic differences of biology, or whatever, and time and again that has proven false.
Since I do not have firsthand experience with being a woman, my information comes from talking to women computer scientists and engineers from my school CS program and my workplace, and listening to their firsthand experiences dealing with sexism in the industry. Their opinions are diverse, but generally are in support for more empowerment of women/minorities in the workplace, so I generally support their agenda. Personally, I enjoy working in a more diverse workplace, anyway (long explanation for another day).
In Soviet Russia during the Cold War, I believe boys and girls were both encouraged to study math and sciences, which resulted in a fairly even gender representation in the career, and neither gender was better than the other on average. Food for thought.
Meanwhile, in Scandinavia, the traditionally-female professions like nursing are even more female-dominated than in the USA.
The trend seems to be: The freer the society, the less women are entering the tech workforce and the more they choose traditionally feminine work.
This even applies in the time-trend in America, where women in tech has reduced significantly since the 80's, while feminism has only become more dominant and wealth has increased.
Food for thought.
At this point, the only way to be wholly convinced that tech doesn't discriminate against women (and some people of color) is to willfully ignore the huge array of evidence, and to assume that every woman who has spoken out about their experience is lying. I'm unwilling to ignore the evidence or to assume that a bunch of women I admire are lying (for what reason, I can't imagine, because the women who speak out face being doxxed, harassed for years, and otherwise making their life miserable with the only goal being to make things a little more fair in the future for other women).