The trick is using the language of equality to argue in favor of an approach which will decrease it.

It's a fairly common tactic inside of the RedPill community, and within White Power/Pride groups. Arguing that by fighting sexism/racism you are being sexist/racist.

Arguing that unproven methods of fighting sexism/racism aren't as effective as everyone claims they are and that said methods are potentially harmful isn't the same as being sexist/racist. I feel like the author is attempting to make the point that such practices aren't really in anyone's interest except the outward appearance of the company.

No, the author is attempting to argue that the practices are irrelevant or ineffective because the default state, without them, is the natural one.

He very explicitly is arguing that policies designed to correct the natural state are sexist/racist on their own, and have to be discarded.

He then hints at having a strong bias towards believing sexist/racist conclusions from a limited reading of a limited amount of information.