Because diverse opinions lead to better end products. Having homogenized groups of people means you're leaving some viewpoints out, and those viewpoints have sometimes been extremely helpful for me as a software developer.
Sure, however this isn't false otherwise. Non-diverse opinions aren't bad by default, and ultimately the main concern here is thinking the opposite, that diverse opinions are always right.
It's an error to assume any opinion is always right. Ultimately institutional sex discrimination is counter-productive to human life, so you will generally see a higher quality of life, lower violence, better health outcomes, reduced chemical toxicity, in places where both sexes have equal social mobility.
Maybe (although it's hard to imagine how somebody's non-education related upbringing could lead them to optimize software, for example), but at what cost? The linked article is suggesting that it's going to cost billions of dollars (more!) to bring in these diverse opinions.
Yes I've observed that it's useful to have people like physicists or electrical engineers in a software development team, because they have a different perspective on things.
Below this is a comment that is now "dead" and cannot be replied to.
To moderators/downvoters: It is said that defending a cause with bad arguments is the most pernicious way to combat it. Similarly, resorting to authority and censorship to defend a cause must be the surest way to ruin it.
We have seen sexism actually grow in the last decades in this field, and i start to worry that this attitude of dealing with it with the argument of authority or other threats on one's carrier may just be one of the causes that we are slowly losing this ideological battle. Or maybe just a symptom?
