This is just like "affirmative action" in schools (which is reverse racism, which is racism). Except it's reverse sexism. Which is sexism.
I am sure that women get selected for panels all the time, when they are experts in the area of discussion of the panel. So this is addressing a non-problem.
You're very wrong on this.
Certainly, we can fall foul of a greedy solution by picking two excellent speakers who are known to violently disagree. Instead, we need to optimise the panel/conference globally.
If a tech panel inspired a woman into pursuing a career in tech, that she had previously felt was "too male-dominated", would that be counted towards being a "good" panel?
Even weaker than that, if a panel went some way to dispell rumours that the tech-world was sexist, wouldn't that be "good" too?
You or I may never notice the impact that these choices have, but some people may, and it may have a profound effect on them.
That said, within the sphere of technology, gender does not matter, in the same way that race does not matter. A human mind is a human mind.
I think actively pointing this out to women or men who bring up gender issues is more likely to be useful than trying to worry about and indirectly correct for other people's irrationality (i.e. dispelling rumors of sexism or worries about male domination).
Regarding male domination: Some workplaces are going to be biased against <X>, although hopefully increasingly few over time, and sometimes, <X> are going to have to change workplaces. <X> could be women, but it could also be all kinds of other things, including traits that I (as a while male) have. For example, I think being a political minority and being introverted, both of which traits I have, can easily cause as much workplace bias/difficulty as being a woman. But it depends on highly on the specific workplace you find yourself in.
To give a specific example, I have seen a group of men in their twenties significantly improved by the addition of a woman in her thirties. Put simply, they grew up a bit and started acting more like professional adults; the output of the group was improved more by the addition of the woman in her thirties, I believe, than it would have been had I added an individually more talented male very similar to the existing members of the group.
Maybe what I'm saying here is that the hiring criteria included "what effect will this person have on the group" and, if one accepts that race/gender/religion has an effect on the group, then it seems sensible to consider those things when hiring.
I believe the problems are in _excluding_ people on grounds of race/religion/gender and not in simply allowing those factors to be part of the selection process.
Of course, that is different than what the linked article is demanding, which is having more women on panels just because, as if it is an intrinsic good, and without considering whether and how much it would affect the quality of the conference.