Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you citing a weird racist blogger on medium that disagrees with the stated conclusion of the paper? Is that how science works now? Abstract from the original paper: > A change in the audition procedures of symphony orchestras--adoption of "blind" auditions with a "screen" to conceal the candidate's identity from the jury--provides a test for sex-biased hiring. Using data from actual auditions, in an individual fi…
You'll get more accurate results if you look at the paper's conclusion, not the abstract. The whole point is that the paper doesn't actually support any of the claims, which it's fairly open about -- that's those "large standard errors". They did not in fact find that the screen increases the probability of a woman being hired. They found that it increased the probability of a woman passing the final round of auditio…
Quote from your second, more respectable, link:
> Pallesen’s objections are strongly stated but they’re not new. Indeed, the authors of the original paper were pretty clear about its limitations.
When I read the original papers, like your second link, I find a level headed paper working with limited data they had available.
I would suggest that the annoyance is with pop science retelling at best, or just a quack selling anger online to fuel his weird obsessions at worst.