> Those are actual falsifiable statements. They can be either true or false. The whole idea of considering them as "viewpoints" is ridiculous and it's precisely

> Those are actual falsifiable statements. They can be either true or false. The whole idea of considering them as "viewpoints" is ridiculous and it's precisely what's the problem with the whole environment surrounding the discussion. Stop it - you are being extraordinarily deceptive with statements like this. Did you actually read this memo? And I mean read it critically? Are these quotes falsifiable statements? "These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics." Didn't see a citation for that. Care to cite the evidence? Can we prove that this assertion is true or false? "This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." Would love to read your citation for anxiety leading to lower number of women in high stress jobs. "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them." Again, I'd love to see some evidence showing that the desire for work life balance is the reason that men disproportionately in leadership positions in tech. Stop pretending that just because the author has sources that his conclusions are supported. His argument was poor. Anyone with reasonable reading comprehension could see that, politics be damned.