I agree with a lot of points this article makes. I have never understood why siri and google voice assistants have a feminine voice. It's good that they want to take the "I" out of responses to highlight the fact that you are talking to a robot.

However I don't understand how they can point to unequal representation of all groups in a field and say that it's a problem. Assuming that all groups require equal representation assumes that all groups are equally distributed in a population and that all different kinds of people should have an equally distributed interest in all fields. This is obviously not the case. I will adamantly oppose any kind of legislation or policy that seeks to restrict any individual based off of the "groups" that they belong to, whether that be gender, race, religion, ice cream preference, etc. However to go further and try to actively include people based off their group identity is fundamentally guided by the same assumption that causes discrimination based off of groups. It is reducing the individual to the intersection of the groups they belong to and not regarding them as the free agent that they are.

"[statistics about how different "groups" of people aren't all equally represented in all fields]. Clearly, something needs to be done about these issues. We’re hardwired for bias"

Am I the only one who sees this statement as ironic? Their own bias is that this is an issue - not a result of individuals making choices.