The article is full of straw men too. However, I liked most of it.

I support the Google Engineer for speaking out.

"I don’t normally write about the underrepresentation of women in science".

I wonder how much you research your facts. We know that at least 85% of veterinary science (yes, science) students are female [1] and nobody is complaining about this or asking for balancing of numbers in that field. This article is strongly implying that forcing a quota (artificially influencing interest) in veterinary science would be diversity. How? Diversity has nothing to do with quotas, nothing. In fact, I consider personality far more important than gender to diversity.

The article also makes remarks about females and males as if they are an absolute. Again, this is a fallacy. If you force 50% of females in an organisation (as an example as many have called for that), you may not actually be diversifying at all! If all the females you hire are tomboys (or masculine), you've achieved what? Just as many masculine personalities, but some just don't have a penis. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "diversity" even means!

The author talks about "affirmative action" and "equal opportunity" as if they are compatible. How does that work? You either hire the best candidate or you do not.

The other elephant in the room is that nobody discusses the areas where females dominate. Show me! Vets are one of many examples [1]. Why is that? I believe this whole topic is one big power struggle by a one-eyed ideology.

"much of the data in Damore’s memo is well backed-up by research"

Thank you for saying that. Several leading behavioural psychologists also confirmed what he said. Which makes the reason behind the outrage even more interesting.

"That coding actually requires “female” skills was spelled out clearly by Yonatan Zunger, a former Google employee". This is a misleading argument. It implies quotas of 50/50. It also assumes that all females are one type and all males are another. The author did not think this argument out well.

"I believe for example if it wasn’t for biases and unequal opportunities, then the higher ranks in science and politics would be dominated by women."

You mean like veterinary science that we do see [1]? And why politics? What about politics is specifically female?

"I’m likewise biased in favor of women"

I really respect your honesty but it's to your own detriment. Your arguments are often flawed. Your research is scant and easily proven wrong in far too many instances. You should really check out Sweden as you suggested. Have a look at their IT and veterinary science numbers. It will turn most of your flawed theories on their head. Yes, I have researched it.

"... increasing diversity"

Again, you really need to be clear. You seem to be saying "hire people based on their genitals because that's diversity".

"change societal gender images"

Please read the work by Dr Simon Baron Cohen on very young children [2]. It sounds like you're saying "I don't care if there's a natural inclination, force people to behave how someone else believes they should so that some ideologists' numbers balance". I strongly disagree with your views here. Strongly. I respect differences in people (and to me, that's true diversity). You appear to want to force a homogeneous society for "diversity".

There are many other sections I could critique. I really don't care if someone is a man or a woman. This is probably why your more sexist views stand out (and you admitted that).

If you need to change one attitude, it's your definition of diversity. Recognising people are different (and trends do exist) is a significant part of it. Quotas are not diversity, especially when they are cherry picked by the media.

[1] http://career-advice.careerone.com.au/career-development/pro...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/apr/17/research.h...