Aside from challenging (badly) the argument that engineering positions are relatively unsociable and thus more fitting for males, you haven’t addressed any of the memo’s main points. The Orwellian attitude on this matter is exactly the problem: stray from the progressive left’s orthodoxy on diversity (read: diversity is our strength), and cross an obvious moral line. And as you finger wag your way through this this piece—not unlike a rattled grade school teacher—you become an exact reflection of the left’s biases and culture of “shaming into silence” that the memo so refreshingly points out. The irony, of course, is that you’re unwittingly reinforcing the memo’s arguments.
When you do engage with the ideas, you create a straw man rather than quoting directly: “I think one-third of my colleagues are biologically unsuited to do their jobs.” At best, this is a misrepresentation of his argument — which is that, based on biological predispositions, women are less likely to prefer solitary roles, not more likely to perform poorly at them. For example, a woman might be less likely to have “tremendous fun” while “hyper-optimizing an inner loop, or cleaning up a class API.” After all, this is something that is presumably done while sitting alone at a computer. But you’re a man, so you happen to have tremendous fun with such things, which is exactly the point at hand.
I would have liked you to take a stab at the memo’s first transgression, the apparent sin of pointing out biological gender differences. You might have made an argument rather than summarily pronouncing the ideas “actively incorrect” without providing any evidence whatsoever; after all, the memo shows an “inability to understand gender” which should be easily dismissed. You might explain why biological differences between genders are unworthy of discussion—or must you procure a biologist to do so? I suspect the premise of your argument might be summed up as this: despite being an empirical reality, biological differences between genders ought not be discussed for fear of engendering intolerance, offending some, perpetuating stereotypes, and on and on. Or, rather than having a biologist substitute for you, why not pass the torch to Danielle — Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance — who found the memo “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender.” Shame, she didn’t make an argument either.
