The whole "priced out of the market" idea is nonsense. That argument isn't even being made by Andreesen here though. The competitive disadvantage is true, by definition. It doesn't make sense to discriminate from a market perspective. The article only supports this: Greenspan got a competitive advantage by hiring women, because they were cheaper. The free market punishes discrimination. It doesn't end discrimination, but it gives an incentive for hiring women.

If I identified as a woman, I frankly wouldn't be so worried about earning a bit less than my male counterparts, but rather about not being hired at all, because of all the legal risks associated with hiring women because of anti-discrimination laws. Nobody is getting sued for discrimination about firing some white boy.