I'd tend to believe that if you have a badass business deal [...] a VC wouldn't say no because a person is black, female, gay, or all 3.
But what data causes you to 'tend to believe'? That assumption is kind of at the heart of the article - not that SV is a pure meritocracy (I doubt many places in the world really are) but that people's perception is that it is a lot more meritocratic than it is - and no-one ever checks to see if their perception is backed up by fact.
Probably the same level of data behind the article we're discussing.
If she had started the article with "I'm just basing this whole article on my own biases and no real data, but..." then we wouldn't really have much to argue about.
I think in this case the article is trying to shift the burden of proof. Why should it be on someone who's asking whether it's a meritocracy rather than on the folks who're repeating this claim? And if the answer is in the affirmative, let's have that discussion.
This isn't directed at you as such. Just that a lot of folks assume the burden of proof ought to be on the questioner(s) of this proposition rather than the proponent(s).
But what data causes you to 'tend to believe'? That assumption is kind of at the heart of the article - not that SV is a pure meritocracy (I doubt many places in the world really are) but that people's perception is that it is a lot more meritocratic than it is - and no-one ever checks to see if their perception is backed up by fact.