By "you are part of the problem", and the article and I are saying the debate is too extreme. I'm not saying he's "wrong"; I'm saying the "because science" peo

By "you are part of the problem", and the article and I are saying the debate is too extreme. I'm not saying he's "wrong"; I'm saying the "because science" people are just as naively contributing to the debate as the "James Damore says women are inferior" people. As I mentioned (and you didn't address), the argument that there shouldn't be any training programs directed toward women leaves out any science about discrimination against women. It's possible that everything he said is 100% true, but that there should still be programs at Google directed toward women (as he argued against). That's what I meant by "reducing workplace policy to science is a fallacy". The problem is the "100%, facts that are completely true" mindset. Certainly you may use nutritional science to guide what you eat, but it's not 100%. Nutritional science is a great example because many of those studies have been overturned -- some would argue MOST such studies are false. You should read a little about the philosophy of science. I think what he said should have been said, although he could have done it in a more constructive way. And I think it's likely that someone on the opposing side leaked the memo on purpose, to get him fired. I saw a lot of these types of internal manifestos in my time at Google. Usually they don't leak, and a logical motive here would have been to force Google's hand and get him fired.