It’s hard to tell where you actually, factually, tangibly *disagree* with Mr. ManifestoGate. Your thesis seems to be that he has misunderstood sex/gender differences because he doesn’t understand that there is variegation between “Women on average” and “The average woman,” and that he conflated statistics with (your) personal anecdote.
Problem being, at no point did his analysis ever attempt to describe traits of “The average woman.” His memo was entirely focused on “Women on average,” and he included several charts, at least one of which is nearly identical to your simplified distribution picture.
He was talking about outcomes, and his thesis was that if you cannot have an open and honest discussion about what is scientifically known (which Google has now proven, you can’t) then you will not be able to affect outcomes in a lasting way. He never said a single thing about biology precluding anyone from any career, whatsoever. The closest he came was suggesting that forcing outcomes (through quotas) was not likely to address underlying differences across populations that lead to what is perceived as statistically unequal or unfair outcomes.
You read the original, right? With the charts and citations? Not just what some garbage hack rag like HuffPo or somesuch slanderous trashfire like Gizmodo published?
(edit:)
Also, Ms., this needs be said:
“ My father has a PhD in mathematics. My mother was an accountant (and simultaneously the best stay-at-home mom, ever). Her sister also has a PhD in mathematics — as does her husband. And my other aunt and uncle both have PhD’s in Computer Science. I’m not listing my family’s credentials because I think they validate mine — “
That is not a case for why you were “biologically designed” to be an engineer! These Googlites would have your head on a platter for saying such. Family connections and upbringing are the strongest socialization force there is. Not only does your pedigree *not* suggest that you have a genetic predilection for math/science, it *does* suggest a rather wonderful amount of what the loonies of the Left call “privilege,” and what conservatives call “good upbringing.”
And the loonies are not entirely wrong. You’ve got a tremendous amount of Alphabet there after your family’s surnames. Along with whatever they personally invested in you, I assume they’re not hermit savants — so it’s safe to assume you’ve also enjoyed the benefit of their professional and personal associations. For you, science and math must have been the path of least resistance, and a career in such to be by far the most likely, most sensible outcome. It would’ve been a little Punk of you to take up music or art, but only a little. Considering your background, the most unlikely outcome would have been to drop out of high school and take up heroin. That’s a tail of the curve for someone with your capability and background.
This is not to say there *isn’t* a genetic component to where you are now (or even more ridiculous, that you haven’t struggled or worked for your position), but you’re hardly a poster child for the problem The Memo was talking about. You obviously didn’t need pushing into a high-powered technical field. But that puts you firmly in the tail of the relevant distribution, many distributions. If you worked at Google, according to the precepts of The Memo, you would be the one there for all the right reasons, and neither the team-members who must work with you, or the applicants you out-performed to win your spot, could find any fault with you. If you ever get that coffee with James Damore, I’m sure you’ll find far more in common than not (though by all observable measures, he’s quite far left of you).