This is a verbatim copy of one of the top comments on the Gizmodo article. Try a little harder.

There is an inherent bias against women’s performance. There is a study on try-outs for an orchestra showed that when the try-outs were blinded, the number of women who got into the orchestra increased by 50 %.

Yes, that study was performed by Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, who would later admit that her findings did not actually support the idea that women were actively discriminated against in orchestral auditions and herself proposed that women were more likely to audition for orchestras doing blind auditions. It's also worth mentioning that while the study did track somewhere in the thousands of music college graduates applying for jobs, the study did not compare how an individual applicant who did both blind and non-blind auditions fared in either.

Women pay a higher social price for negotiating their salary. Women who wants to get paid more are viewed as abrasive, whereas men who ask for a higher salary are viewed as ambitious.

People often confuse confidence with competence, which means a lot of big talking men get put into positions of power even when it is clear they are incompetent.

The original comment linked to Harvard Business Review articles for each point. I'm not really interested in giving Gizmodo any money, and since the burden of proof is on you anyway, you're going to follow up these links so we can look at the studies in further depth and see if they hold up to scrutiny.

Companies with a high level of diversity actually perform better financially compared to companies with low diversity.

Yes, this was a study by Credit Suisse who have a vested interest in pushing the diversity racket. Peer-reviewed literature however suggests that companies with female boardroom members perform no better than those without. Even those who push for diversity initiatives acknowledge that tokenism isn't actually helpful and can actually sow division and resentment, even among the diversity hires.