> You likely feel that your capability is more in question, that you have to prove yourself more than the men on the team, and that this person you work next to (or for) starts out with an assumption that you're less capable.

I have a hard time understanding how one could come to such a conclusion.

(In the following, "P(X|Y)" should understood as "the probability of X given Y")

Starting with probabilities: P(capable|your-gender-race-etc) != P(capable|you-being-you)

If your employer hired you and another peer, and assuming you were both put through the same hiring process for the same job, wouldn't you expect that you're of similar caliber, regardless of background? Would it not be irrational to expect anything else (unless, I suppose, you have little faith in said hiring process)?

Strangely, there are people who respond the way you suggest:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-employe...

In the video embedded in the article above, the Executive Editor of Recode responds with "I don't know about you, but I ate stress for breakfast and I like my big title at Recode." She and the news anchor then sarcastically tease each other for not being cut out for their jobs, as if anyone made a personal claim to that effect.

But here's the thing: no one said they're unfit for their positions. What the author of the memo did express, however, was that he believed in the possibility of biological differences resulting in the distributions of capability of each gender being offset by some amount -- there's even a graphic of two normal distributions slightly offset right within the memo to help illustrate this point.

I won't go into any argument for or against this belief, as that's a deviation from the topic that you first rose. However, I will address the implications of this belief: suppose for the sake of argument that we, too, share this belief. What does this say about any given female colleague? At worst, we could say she might be one of a minority of women who share in both an interest in and ability to write software. However, this shouldn't evoke any ill feelings, as not only is the probability at hand just a number, it's also a number which does not apply to her as an individual: we have from observation (e.g. passing the interview, acing performance reviews, 1-on-1 experience, etc) that the probability of her being a solid engineer is 100%; that is, the probability of any one random woman possessing both the interest and aptitude in software development is irrelevant, and conflating that general probability with the conditional probability of your colleague being fit for her job would be irrational.

Now, here's where I ask you for your help: is there some angle that I'm missing here? I will admit that I tend to be more on the reptilian side of things, insofar as it behooves me to sequester my emotions; assuming agreement with my analysis (and if not, please do point out any flaws), is it unfair to expect people to not be emotionally stirred by a remark that decidedly has no bearing on them as an individual?

The one thing I might understand (even if I can't empathize with it) is the tendency for many to equate oneself with their "group", such that an expression that can be taken to be a slight against a group resembling themselves is taken as a personal attack. While I find it hard to imagine, I suppose what could be happening in such scenarios is that many people feel targeted merely by association. As a white man with an extensive background in dance, I suppose this could be like being offended by tropes like "most white men have no rhythm" -- for me, I'm not "most white men", I'm Charles Strahan: I've won two state German folk dancing competitions, I led the Latin dance club in my high school days, and I generally (I think) don't suck at dancing; I couldn't give a single fuck what someone says about "most white men", or "most blue eyed people", or whatever -- it doesn't apply to me. To broaden the scope a bit, the same goes for insults like "most men who dance are <insert inflammatory remark regarding masculinity>". Is this what I'm missing, or something else entirely?