I've never really noticed the biases, because I've never known who actually applies to work alongside me.
I've known barely any lady IT types°, but the problem may stem because there aren't that many who went through technical education like their male contemporaries (the fault for that
being elsewhere than the HR department or the IT bosses). Ditto I know few male hairdressers. (The one I do know decided to try it after his career down a coalmine was cut short (NPI!) by Margaret Thatcher et al. I have no idea why
he retrained for that, but it wouldn't have been his life's amvition under other circumstances, I imagine.)
Ethnically, I've worked with non-Anglos, including Asian¹ and Chinese² and even… French! Oh, and I worked in Germany myself, which naturally meant I was surrounded by… a whole lot of other French colleagues! None of the bosses (except the one in Germany) were anything other than British (one of my bosses' bosses was British Jamaican, ok?) and though the hyper-Scottish one may
have favoured Scots on his team, the only clear favouritism was when I was asked by another if I minded that the new hire (who was a college friend of his) would be put into a slightly higher managerial role than me (I didn't mind, I'd wasn't interested in manageering).
That said, I've seen some dregs dragged into IT roles (white, British, male) and I've not always been a class act. I'm not entirely sure where we'd be without pioneers like Dame 'Steve' Shirley
and her ilk, but even so many years later there always seems to be an initiative to encourage girls to continue from their usually better-than-boys early maths/science grades into higher levels or at least continuing dabbling.
Just a couple³ of years back there was a Girls Can Program sort of initiative through a short TV series, but there's no way yet to see obvious signs of this or prior versions particularly filtering up. Not that I have the data to see whether IT departments themselves are a larger part of the problem.
(It seems I've just set down a lot of anecotal evidence that probably means nothing, compared with the aforementioned credible evidence. Have it anyway. It might as well be seen, even if only to be pitied for some reason or other.)
° - There have been a number at other offices in the same company as I was in, at a variety of seniorities assumed appropriate to their ages, but I made no rigorous study as to whether the one in charge of the whole European email infrastructure servers (for example) was keeping pace with similarly experienced men.
¹ - In UK terms, not US ones. Which means I'm guessing Pakistani origin, from his surname, or pre-Partition rest-of-India as he was an nth-generation local and I never really asked "but where are you really
from, in that annoyingly condescending and/or accusative way some people do.
² - There were many oversees students from China in that University's roster, it seemed to be a catchment thing, like another Uni (that I didn't work at) had a Greek influx. But I never asked if my colleague
had arrived as a student or just happened to be a localised person of Chinese heritage. Because it was as irrelevant (and irreverent) as the other footnote questions, as far as work was concerned!
³, perhaps. Or ⁴, maybe more