Pretty sure the parent poster's point is that it's a very common rhetorical tactic amongst some proponents of postmodern social justice to expect perfect equilibrium between nation-wide population demographics and particular company staffs, then criticize the company for not following this unrealistic expectation.

They were mocking it.

You sarcastically state: So they should start hiring women who don't have the skills over others (who happen to be male) that do.

This asserts that if a company has hired a preponderance of men, and then it goes out of its way to hire women, that it necessarily must hire women who are inferior to the men it was predisposed to hire.

This is based on your axiomatic belief that the company's hiring was already fair and unbiased, and if a company doesn't have any (or has few) women, this is because there weren't any qualified women to hire. Same for people of colour, &c.

So if hiring is already objectively fair, seeking diversity must necessarily involve hiring inferior people.

But the argument falls apart if hiring ISN'T objectively fair, if the assumption is wrong. And that's the point being debated. Thus, if you feel that hiring is already objectively fair, you should state that outright, not beg the question being raised.

Why so angry? If company in Bengalore can have 70% women engineers, it should not be a problem for well funded startup in US.