> Instead I'm accused of being discriminatory.

We are talking about this, my friend, I hold no ill will towards you nor do I accuse you of any wrongdoing. If I had said something with "you", it was about the argument on the table.

>I claim no special knowledge. I think that's true of both of us.

Agreed.

>I speculate, what if the existing bias is actually excluding 80% of the women. A reasonable response is, "Yeah that would be awful, we should do something about it in that case".

The speculation is that the bias exists, and is based on gender, is significant to skew decision making, and is widespread i.e. held by majority, strong enough to warrant an active adjustment. Now, we are not talking about Saudi Arabia or Somalia, we are talking about the most liberal place in the USA i.e. California. The same google employees that support Democrats in droves, wanted first woman president, and call themselves progressives, and rally for immigrant and refugee rights and environment protection.

There are two things being assumed:

One: that there is bias that holds every woman inferior to any man. This assumption needs to be proven. That is insulting, ridiculous claim against the educated human beings that work at Google, many with wives, daughters, sisters, who call themselves liberal progressives, who would stand up for equality for all.

Two: that the demographic of google employment is because of this bias and nothing else, or at least significantly because of this bias. This assumption needs to be proven.

If you can't prove these two assumptions, you can't act as if the injustice has happened and needs to be corrected at once.

Who else would you let make same argument? For what issue would you allow them to draw same conclusions, based on as much proof, and demand similar action?

How about hijab wearing women vs. non-hijab wearing woman? Need equal or demographically equal representation? How about for-vaccination and anti-vaccination, need equal representation? How about evolution-deniers, need equal representation?

Equality for all doesn't mean 13% black, 80% white and 7% Hispanic, 33% Christian, 8% Jew, 20% Atheist, 45% woman, 40% man, 10% Trans, 10% LGBT, 60% straigt, 20% asexual. You would have put a job Ad for Muslim Gay Woman that is Hispanic. That is quota system.

Equality means it doesn't matter whether your name is Jen, Jose, Jerry or Jasmine, you are selected because of what you bring to the table for the job.

>I speculate

A kid who loves programming, wants to work for google, has taken college education that is needed, has spent countless hours of his own to learn new things, he gets rejected because Google wants to up the women count. That kid never realizes what happened to him as he walks out of the interview. That is wrong. I am not willing to do that because of a speculation.

Let me say this about Damore's claims... he asked for diversity of ideas. I disagree. Google is not in the business of having equal number of conservatives and progressives within its ranks. It has nothing to do with the job of programming gmail or youtube. Workplaces are last hangouts for people where they come together, outside of their individual bubble. We do not need to politicize the workplace. Don't Ask Don't Tell, for political inclinations, at workplace.