With all due respect, I don't think your assertion is correct that the Damore memo claimed that "women [are] biologically incapable of leadership and programmer

With all due respect, I don't think your assertion is correct that the Damore memo claimed that "women [are] biologically incapable of leadership and programmer roles". Instead, what the memo said was that statistically, women have a different distribution of traits than men, and this difference in distribution may lead to, on average, women being less predisposed to software engineering roles as they exist today. It did not say that women are incapable of being software engineers. Instead the message is that women who are happy in a software engineering role (and therefore women who will work as software engineers) are going to be further out on the bell curve than men who are happy as software engineers, and so there will be fewer of them. The memo also suggested some ways to improve gender diversity without discrimantory hiring practises (based on the assumption that these statistical trait differences are in fact the main cause of gender ratio differences), which I think was a positive contribution to the discussion. Overall I think the memo made some good points (although it is maybe a little long-winded and could be more rigorously cited). I'd encourage you to read it in full if you haven't just to understand what it's saying. There is a PDF at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I... . Edit: I do agree that claiming that women may have different abilities, as opposed to simply preferences, is problematic and oversteps the bounds of professionalism. This claim was limited to two words in one place in the document ("and abilities"), but I don't think that's the major bent of the document.