I'm giving an alternative explanation for why the female named resumes are rated worse by the professors.

I'm "pulling it from" the same place you pulled your preferred explanation (that female performance conditional on the same resume is the same, and so the worse ratings were due to professors preferring males, even given the same performance, or incorrectly expecting worse performance from the females).

The issue with your interpretation of the study is your selective appeal to evidence.

You would like to provide evidence for the fact that worse outcomes for females are due to discrimination. But the evidence you provided is consistent with both explanations (discrimination vs actually worse performance from females)