Actually this argument only works for binary treats. Like "tall" vs "short". If hired random people above 6'1", we would still expect that most women hired were only slightly above the cut, while the men were a bit further up.

Also most hired men would be only slightly above the cut, if I'm not wrong. In any case, I'd be happy enough of being above the cut, some people are never satisfied, really :).

He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech, and google hires unbiased from suitable people, then google should expect a 55:45 gender gap.

That doesn't mean that the female colleagues are unsuitable for tech, since they were exactly hired among people who were suitable.

He is also not saying that this explains the complete gender gap, just that there is no point in blindly aiming at 50:50 without considering research on the underlying distribution.

He may have the research wrong, but otherwise the point seems to stand?

EDIT: Of course, this argument only works for a binary 'suitable/not suitable' distinction. If 'tech talent' was said to be normal distributed, with men having a slightly higher expectation, it would follow that the average men above some cut was also better than the average woman above the same cut. So in that way he does attack his colleagues.

This is still misrepresenting. He said those gender-based tendencies lead men and women to prefer and be interested in different things. Preference and interest has nothing to do with "suitability".

To say that 100% of men and women are suitable to work in tech, but that maybe only 20-30% of the women would actually want to would be a more accurate representation of what he wrote.

It's hard to see what's sexist about suggesting women should work wherever they prefer to, rather than being told they should become software engineers.

That makes sense. My next question would be:

> He says that if 10% of men and 8% of women are suitable for tech

Why would a higher % of men be more suitable for tech? In the paper he suggests it is partly due to biological differences. Do you agree with that?

Depends on what you deem suitable. If you're aiming to get people who have a strong desire for exploring and creating systems then you'd likely end up with more people with Aspergic traits, a majority of which are male.

> It's funny that he refuses to admit any fault in what he said

Fault as in he regrets it?, or would have done it differently another time? If his goal was to get people to discuss this topic, how could he have done much better?

> ideological rigidity and refusing to entertain other people's ideas in good faith is exactly what he's complaining about

I don't think you can fault him for the rigidity or not entertain other people's ideas. It wasn't perfect or even great in either direction, but it surely made more effort than the many internet discussions, which we don't find fault with.

> it surely made more effort than the many internet discussions, which we don't find fault with.

I wouldn't say he made significantly more effort, and people certainly (and correctly IMO) find fault with them.

> Fault as in he regrets it?

I don't think he should regret publishing it, but I also don't think it led to much productive discussion about the issues here. People on both sides just chose to ignore and distort what other people said.

I don't think it's fair to say he made a good faith attempt to engage with the other side's position and fit it into the context of his beliefs. Instead he just presented his ideas and I don't think that does much on its own to advance the discussion. Predictably led to both sides digging in rather than finding some common ground.

He doesn't get what? Do most people attacking him not have that belief?

The point of diversity isn't to force everyone to think men and women are identical in every capacity. The point of diversity is to create a desired environment with different kinds of people.

> The point of diversity isn't to force everyone to think men and women are identical in every capacity.

I don't think he thinks that. At least not if we are to believe the memo.

However I do think many of the responses took offence with the idea of biological differences between men and women. And maybe rightly so, since some of them referred to seemingly good research showing that he at least overstated his claims.

What many of the responders don't seem to get, is that a good reply shouldn't dependent on whether differences exist or not. Instead it should tackle the question of how we treat different people equally. When should we try and level the playing field, and when should we accept that gender gaps (and other kinds of gaps) appear?