Based on extensive anecdotal evidence, not stats, I'd recommend, yes, using first two initials and then surname, if your surname is sufficiently unusual so that (e.g., if/when you google yourself with those parameters) you are "unique".
Yes, be sure to set up ORCID and similar, as mentioned in another answer, to disambiguate yourself, and to allow for future modifications.
I say this based on long-term observation, in math in the U.S., of perhaps inadvertent presumption about gender and such... Better to avoid it entirely, even if things are not as wildly prejudicial as decades ago. Dodge it.
Yes, I know there is a big issue here, which my advice might be seeming to ignore. In effect, later, when you are established, you can make the professional-ideological point that you were ... who you are ... all along. On practical grounds, I'd tend to recommend against too-aggressively mixing ideology and professional issues, for a beginner, since you'll tend to not get your foot in the door at all, and be dismissed as marginal. Get a little credibility first, and then you'll be better able to do something about the (visible, if subliminal to many people) inequities that exist in the system.
EDIT: Thanks to @DanRomik for some insightful comments... which among other things made me think that a fuller explanation of my rationale for the advice would help people evaluate it.
So, first, yes, in general, short-term, when one is acting on one's own as a not-so-powerful person, it may be best to try to "stay under the radar", unless one chooses to risk martyrdom of some sort. I cannot give advice about nuances of self-immolation, so I tend to give advice about how to avoid it... which may not be the universally correct choice, I understand.
In mathematics, in the U.S., in my observation, the biggest bias issues are not about overt, explicit bias (though there is quite a bit of that), but unconscious bias. That is, I know very many good mathematicians on hiring committees who would never consciously select against women, ethnic minorities, etc., ... but nevertheless mysteriously functionally do so. If accused of somehow being biased, these honorable people would be hurt and absolutely deny any intent of discrimination.
Yet they do discriminate. Wow, how to make a policy to prevent this? Obviously it is easy to prohibit overt bias, etc., even tho' people with conscious biases can figure out how to circumvent such... but how to outlaw (acting upon) unconscious biases?
For that matter, people without conscious bias, but with unconscious ones, and who otherwise strive mightily to behave ethically and with a good social conscience, will (apparently!) have extreme difficulty understanding that there does continue to be a problem ... since, supposedly, biased behavior is illegal... "Equal Opportunity"... "Affirmative Action"... and so on... ?!?!
In my own case, in general social terms, I had not really thought of the possibility until my daughter explained to me "beneficent sexism": guys hold doors open for gals, all that. Nothing overtly mean about it, but, duh, yes, lotta problems.
And, no, not "equality", but "equity".
Now and then I think about the semi-voluntary martyrs of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. c. 1964. My question in that case is whether that's what it really took? To read LBJ's memoirs, it probably did. What's the analogue for gender equity?