Does neutrality actually help in achieving that goal though? Isn’t it just making the stereotyping worse? Let’s say purely as an example you were doing IT support and the person you were helping had no idea who you were, their just going to assume a stereotypical dorky cis white man helped them with the problem. Whereas if they knew, let’s say a cis black woman helped them, it’ll atleast to a small degree help break that stereotype. Maybe I’m just be overly optimistic here though, I’d like to think most people wouldn’t care either way, but if there is no representation at all people will just default to the general stereotype and it’ll never improve.

This is absolutely true. In the early days of the internet there was loads of optimism that the anonymity would break down barriers but, as you say, it just meant everyone was assumed to be a middle-class, cishet, white man.

It's context, I guess. If non-neutrality mean you never get a foot in the door, you need neutrality. But of course it is lived experience that changes people's attitudes (which is why I usually do point out that the man they are thanking is a figment of their imagination even though the response will often be shitty). But sometimes, you just want to be able to do what you're doing without the sheer hostility emanating from fragile white male egos.

Things need to change but it's already disadvantaged individuals who have to carry the burden of making that change happen. They get to do all the unacknowledged diversity work in the background, and so get to do less of the work that gets them recognised for their skills and not just their identity. There's no easy answers here. We're all prisoners of history.