The article makes the point that in a particular funding call, men got more money than women because there are more men of some ages due to imbalances of the past, rather than because of discrimination against women. However, it does not argue why funding should be awarded base on the merit of the work. Additionally, the last paragraph is unnecessary and lowers the article's value in my view. Discriminating against a majority to make more space for a minority might be the wrong thing to do, but it is in no way equivalent to discriminating against a minority to exclude that minority from participation.

On the topic of the title, even if it's not addressed in the article itself, why would someone argue against evaluating scientists for their work instead of their identity? The problem is that science is so specialized today that only other specialists can value each other's work. But some external control or balancing force is necessary to avoid politics and tribalism (yes, scientists are human too). Forcing diversity in funding may be a way to disrupt endogamous tendencies without compromising quality of research (unless you believe that women or cultures or whatever do worse science).

On the other hand, a lot of science is "hit and miss". Many important discoveries are found by chance. And a lot of extremely important basic research is not obviously important until some flashy result is achieved, if ever. Funding this is almost a lottery. And therefore, it is a good place to exert some action into diversity. There are still many high profile grants and awards for excellent researchers and groups, so it is not a problem and, who knows, maybe it is good, to distribute funding to increase social representation so that science does not become (or keeps on being) a white, well-off male game.