But, like, Damore makes a case to the effect that "biological explanations can't be ruled out" and then reverses those weasel-words by suggesting that

But, like, Damore makes a case to the effect that "biological explanations can't be ruled out" and then reverses those weasel-words by suggesting that his biological explanations be used to guide policy by, say, encouraging pair programming which he supposes to be something that women are likely better at on average. But the very fact he made that suggestion implies that he also wants to narrow the gender divide. By your logic, if he wanted to reduce the number of women in tech, he'd be advocating less pair-programming. It also seems to me that the pair-programming idea was plucked out of the air to be used as an example to further a discussion, not a solution to be implemented. This sort of move suggests that he thinks the biological effects that he's citing (see note [1]) are big enough to guide policy, which they're not I'm inclined to agree with that. But his memo was written in response to policies that are already being implemented, which he thinks are bad. I'm really not concerned about whether his ideas are good or bad - the experts on this subject can work that out between themselves. What concerns me is that, while he was confident enough in his theory to put it forward for wider scrutiny, the makers of the policies he is objecting to weren't. And when they were presented with a counter-argument anyway, they had to set an example to everyone else who might wish to speak up by having its author fired and smeared with accusations of bigotry.