TL;DR version, James Damore works for Google, researches scientific sources for gender definitions. Compiles each definition and factor into a document that use

TL;DR version, James Damore works for Google, researches scientific sources for gender definitions. Compiles each definition and factor into a document that uses neutral third party citations and peer review to back up his citations. Gets fired over SJW Politics, accusing him of making gender stereotypes by people using politics, culture, society for gender definitions, Google panics over the protesters, feminists, social justice warriors, etc upset over the document and under pressure fire James Damore. He was not a shitty or toxic employee, he was assigned to do scientific research on genders and compile it into a document using scientific proof. https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU Look at the full text of that video to see the links cited: Published on Aug 9, 2017 James Demore of Google recently wrote a memo detailing his thoughts about Google's various diversity initiatives. Inside the company, and then outside, it went viral. He lost his job, in consequence: for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." The problem is that everything James claimed is solidly backed by well-developed scientific literatures. Thus, the company that is arguably in charge of more of the world's communication than any other has now fired a promising engineer for stating a series of established scientific truths. That's worth thinking about. In this full 50 minute interview, James and I discuss his motivations, and the consequences of his actions. We are joined (audio only) by another Google employee who wishes, for obvious reasons, to remain anonymous. A fund-raiser for James has been established, here: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/ja.. https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/ja... Here are a series of references buttressing each and every claim James made in his memo, which has been erroneously deemed pseudo-scientific (full papers linked where possible): Sex differences in personality: http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp http://bit.ly/2gJVmEp http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx http://bit.ly/2vEKTUx Larger/large and stable sex differences in more gender-neutral countries: (Note: these findings runs precisely and exactly contrary to social constructionist theory: thus, it's been tested, and it's wrong). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1.. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1.. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1... http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4 http://bit.ly/2uoY9c4 (Women's) interest in things vs (men's) interest in things: http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU http://bit.ly/2wtlbzU http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru http://bit.ly/2fsq7Ru The importance of exposure to sex-linked steroids on fetal and then lifetime development: http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS http://bit.ly/2vP0ZLS Exposure to prenatal testosterone and interest in things (even when the exposure is among females): http://bit.ly/2wI28RE http://bit.ly/2wI28RE Primarily biological basis of personality sex differences: http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs http://bit.ly/2vmtSMs http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0 http://bit.ly/2uoPzy0 Status and sex: males and females http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh http://bit.ly/2uoWkMh http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8 http://bit.ly/2uoIOw8 http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6 http://bit.ly/2vNzcL6 To quote de Bruyn et al (first reference on status and sex, above): high status predicts more mating opportunities and, thus, increased reproductive success. “This is true for human adults in many cultures, both ‘modern’ as well as ‘primitive’ (Betzig, 1986). In fact, this theory seems to be confirmed for non-human primates (Cheney, 1983; Cowlishaw and Dunbar, 1991; Dewsbury, 1982; Gray, 1985; Maslow, 1936) and other animals from widely differing ecologies (Ellis, 1995) such as squirrels (Farentinos, 1972), cockerels (Kratzer and Craig, 1980), and cockroaches (Breed, Smith, and Gall, 1980).” Status also increases female reproductive success, via a different pathway: “For females, it is generally argued that dominance is not necessarily a path to more copulations, as it is for males. It appears that important benefits bestowed upon dominant women are access to resources and less harassment from rivals (Campbell, 2002). Thus, dominant females tend to have higher offspring survival rates, at least among simians (Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, 1997); thus, dominance among females also appears to be linked to reproductive success.” Personality and political belief http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb http://bit.ly/2hJ1Kjb http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB http://bit.ly/2fsxIzB http://bit.ly/2fsILJd http://bit.ly/2fsILJd http://bit.ly/2uoPS87 http://bit.ly/2uoPS87 http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq http://bit.ly/2ftDhOq Conscientiousness associated with conservatism; neuroticism and agreeableness with liberalism: http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r http://bit.ly/2wHNA4r Occupations by gender: https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gend.. https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gend... Problems with the measurement and concept of unconscious bias: http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP http://bit.ly/2vGzhQP http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP http://bit.ly/2vQuwEP (this one is particularly damning)