Even more, the “science” Damore (and, sadly, also the findings his opponents in this debate) bases his writing on, is — if it has not been thoroughly debunked already — questionable at best. Most of it is currently either under review or considered not stable enough to be anything but an example of about 20+ years of social psychology “research” gone badly awry.
Even if he’d spent this time, and even if Google had backed its response with citations and a survey of existing research and literature, the pool is sufficiently poisoned, that any fish caught in it, must be considered poisonous as well unless one is willing to engage in rigorous replication work.
With some of the very same people who write fifteen-page responses to Damore’s screed also espousing cruddy data dredged p-hacktivism such as Cuddy’s “Power Posing” (see the Ranehill Response), no stable, scientific, debate can be had in this field for years to come, while we clean house and redo much of social psychology’s research.
I am with you and all for expecting academic rigor, but I am sure that as a good data scientist your toenails would curl upwards if you spent more than five minutes in the swamp that was, and sadly partially still is, this field of research. Drawing any conclusions, either way, would be academically dishonest and scientific mayhem.