> Your comments have devolved into into a gish gallop. You claimed that his paper was based solely on preference, nothing else.

Wrong. Now you're not just putting words in Damore's mouth, you're putting words in mine as well.

What I wrote was, "The memo did not claim this. The references to innate differences were only in reference to women's choices. At no point did the author claim they women "aren't physically suited" to IT."

He offers a variety of explanation as to why women have different preferences such as attraction to things vs. people, and the distribution (but not aggregate difference) in ability. The point remains, though, his claims were limited to women's preferences. He used differences in the distribution of ability to explain why this difference in preference exist, but his claim is exclusively about women's preferences.

If if you do insist on focusing in on the mere use of the word "ability" absent the context, Damore did not write that women are any worse than men.

> - Damore said that underrepresentation of women in tech and leadership is because of their differing preferences and abilities due to biological causation.

No, the distribution of ability affects preference. This comment explains this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20782914

> - He misrepresents Big5 data to list neuroticism, extraversion, and empathy as biological reasons why women "have a hard time" in leadership - i.e. lack some of the ability requisite for the job.

But crucially, he does not say that this make them worse at tech. Quite the opposite, he says that Google should better recognize extroversion expressed as cooperation in performance reviews. This only hampers them insofar as Google is not creating a good environment, and he's asking google to change that environment.

> - He claims that women have more anxiety, and as such Google should cater to women's anxiety more to help them with tech leadership.

Aagain this is not saying that women are worse at tech. Anxiety can be detrimental if the company does not accommodate it, but it is not a barrier to success if tech if the company does. And he is asking Google to be accommodating.

> This isn't the memo of someone who says that women just prefer other jobs, this is someone who misused data to try to fit his hypothesis that women's biological differences mean they are not as capable in tech and leadership.

False. At no point did Damore write that "women's biological differences mean they are not as capable in tech", and it only hampers them in leadership insofar as Google does not appropriately recognize the way women display extroversion (and he subsequently offers suggestions to address this). You're trying to portray calls for Google to make its environment more friendly to women as saying that women are biologically worse at tech. This is absurd. It also makes people adverse to offering any suggestions to improve the experience of women in tech. Have an idea that you think will make things better for women in tech? Well, you better keep it to yourself otherwise you'll be branded a sexist.

The incorrect statements you are making about the memo are characteristic of someone that read the misleading (and at times outright false) media coverage of the memo. People who read the memo without being primed to see it as sexist do not make these errors. Make no mistake. Damore was not fired for the words he actually wrote. Remember his memo was circulated for about a month without causing a storm. It was only after the media's misrepresentation coverage that he was fired.