This is the heart of her text:
"But the question stands as to why Bitcoin doesnt reflect the ranks of the unbanked at all. Why isnt the crypto-currency of the future taking hold among [these] communities...?"
The 'reflection' she is talking about, relies on statistics taken from here
http://simulacrum.cc/2014/02/01/bitcoin-community-survey-2014/Statistically, that site says, as she reports, that (to quote her article) "the average user is a 32.1-year-old libertarian male."
We could question the legitimacy of this statistical portrait and so reject this depiction, but she has accepted it, after reinforcing it with some additional, more informal links.
She correctly notes that Bitcoin sees itself as an alternative to traditional banking. I'm sure we can agree on this.
She then goes on to discuss people and communities who are shut out of traditional banking. She notes that they are not typically 32.1-year-old libertarian males. So she asks why is there this gap between a new non-traditional banking system and a large community of people who really need a non-traditional banking system. I think this is an obvious and legitimate question.
Her answer to why involves several factors that one could accept or reject: the technological difficulty in using the system, the risks involved in the absence of government regulation, and deeply ingrained systemic biases against many members of the unbanked.
I think there is wide agreement on the first point. Bitcoin is currently difficult to use securely for many people. The second point is more controversial, but clearly there are many different points of view about the questions of risk vs. regulation. It is a topic currently under intense debate in the community. The third point is probably the most controversial and I won't speak for or against it here.
So someone asks "Why isn't Bitcoin reaching out to communities who in theory could benefit from what it offers?"
And the community responds here with: "She's Jewish," "She's a woman," "She's ugly."
nice one.