Thanks for the link to the article... it'll take me a little bit of time to get into the detail. But, the second scientist in the article says the following: >

Thanks for the link to the article... it'll take me a little bit of time to get into the detail. But, the second scientist in the article says the following: >But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. I would argue that even if he didn't mean to, "using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality" is the message he gave to many people. I do believe his argument is more complex than that, but it's not sufficiently accounting for this impression. I'll continue reading. In the meantime, asking if I read the memo and showing me the definition of "incoherent" ... can we please have a respectful discussion? I'm happy to explain why I find the memo, as a whole, incoherent, with examples. (Edit: changed "first" to "second" scientist)