Also, the article seems to think missing out some weak-ass graph and a link to wikipedia as irrefutable proof that this guy knows what he's talking about and everyone is out to misconstrue his words. Nope.
I'll tell you some bias he makes no mention of. The bias of having Disney princess for girls before they're born. Of being bought pink and told they're pretty not clever. Then getting dolls as presents instead of practical problem solving toys. The shoes and clothes bought that aren't practical for climbing trees or exploring. Then watching every Hollywood film about men while pathetic women characters look savvy and get "rescued" like the fairytales they were told when they were little.
After all this, even if the adverts of scantily clad girls in both boys and girls magazines haven't dissuaded them a career in science. Perhaps they study and perhaps they do so well as to get a job at google. Where they will be surrounded by a good many male asshole engineers (it's likely because I'm a male software guy and have seen no shortage). They persist anyway. Then some male privileged white lad who's a Princeton graduate pops up and says they're neurotic. Wants to talk bias in an open way? Nope
He's missed the point. He wants to talk about the very few who've travelled that unlikely journey made all they way to Google despite the obvious barriers that were in place before they were born.