I think it's important to require quotes alongside so to make discussion easier, by not having to force others to read long single-spaced 14px pages, and more accurate, by allowing the discussion to narrow in on the specific points.

1). The original claim was:

>"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
- They’re universal across human cultures

- They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

- Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

- The underlying traits are highly heritable

- They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective" (pg 3)

The claim is not that differences in each gender are universal across all cultures, only that, on average, there are biological differences that can be accounted for, without including social construction

The paper you linked also does not refute universal differences across human cultures, but suggest nurture may influence the behaviour of different genders. I believe the following:

"The underlying cultural differences between the Khasi and the Maasai offer
room for speculation on environmental factors." (pg. 1656)

sums up the paper well.

2). There were three claims. You're going to need to quote the specific points where you believe he implied or directly said it was okay to discriminate on gender.

Here was the short section on it:

"Women, on average, have more​ :
- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in ​ people rather than things​ , relative to men (also
interpreted as ​ empathizing vs. systemizing​ ).

- These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or ​ artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even
within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.

- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.

- This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences
and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a
women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men
without support.

- Neuroticism​ ​ (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." (pg. 4)

That source is also not credible. It cites itself here: https://www.fastcompany.com/40448511/this-is-how-gender-diff..., and also states that there are personality differences between men and women in all the companies surveyed, except for google.

Here they are:

"- Male Facebook employees are 40% more likely to have an inflated sense of superiority compared to female employees.

- Female employees at Apple and Microsoft are 23% more prone to anxiety than their male counterparts.

- Men at Microsoft are 35% more ambitious and 34% more calculating than females.

- Male Uber employees are 32% more socially assertive than female employees.

- Google’s workforce displayed no major differences between male and female employees."

These align with the author's points. However, we don't have access to the data and it should not be taken as evidence. I'd also like to note that the only reference outside of the website itself, is a plug for a job board. There are eight links citing itself and one for Good&Co.

3). This is not addressing the point that the bar is lowered. You're arguing that diversity is more efficient, which is not the focus.

I will humor the first source, which happens to be lying terribly with statistics.

"In a global analysis of 2,400 companies conducted by Credit Suisse, organizations with at least one female board member yielded higher return on equity and higher net income growth than those that did not have any women on the board." https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter

What they don't say is that the difference of 4% (from 12% and 16%) and spread over 6 years. That's 6 basis points (.6% or .006) per year, a very negligible amount. I'd like to also note that ROE is only a measure of stockholder value, by itself.

"Net income growth for companies with women on the board has averaged 14% over the past six years compared to 10% for those with no female board representation."

Again, 4% spread over 6 years, 6 basis points. This also is another measure of stockholder value. I'll diverge from the facts in saying that this also aligns with the author's point that women have a stronger interest in feelings and people, than money.

"Large-cap companies with at least one woman on the board have outperformed their peer group with no women on the-board by 26% over the last six years, according to a report by Credit Suisse Research Institute"

Also, that 26%? It comes from adding up all of the negligible differences from 6 different measurements, across years.

4). This is misrepresentation. What was actually stated:

"At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story." (pg 3)

If anyone would like the full source memo with references, you may find it here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...