While I can see how that statement could be abused to sexist ends, nothing about it is sexist nor prescribes any sort of discriminatory treatment. Note that it

While I can see how that statement could be abused to sexist ends, nothing about it is sexist nor prescribes any sort of discriminatory treatment. Note that it doesn't imply or conclude that a given female applicant is less qualified than a given male candidate nor that the pipeline of female applicants is less qualified in aggregate than the pipeline of male applicants (because there's no reason to assume that the pipeline has the same distribution as the overall population). It merely suggests that (assuming pertinent biological causes) we shouldn't expect a fair process to result in parity of outcomes. Whether or not there are pertinent biological causes is a question I leave to scientists, but I do want to note that (contrary to Damore's critics), science has established biological sex differences that may be pertinent, and lots of scientists have validated Damore's position (that biological differences may explain some of the gender distribution in tech). https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201711/the-truth-about-sex-differences?collection=1107987 https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201711/the-truth-ab...