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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.