Valid points in the Google manifesto have been totally ignored

I think men are naturally more competitive too. There aren't tons of studies on human competition, but when male dogs go through puberty they become more competitive and aggressive, hence a reason why neutering is so popular (to curb the behavior).

Also a lot of the top contributors to these equality / affirmative action posts seem ignorant of biochemistry. They always sight testosterone and estrogen as the only chemical differences, which is very high-school level understanding of the real gender differences.

You need to look at many androgens (androsenediol, androstenendione, dehydroepiandrosterone, dihydrotestosterone, testosterone), estrogens (estradiol, estetrol, estriol, estrone), progestogens (e.g. progesterone) and other biomarkers like DHEA, adrenals, prolactin to get the full picture.

This is also why the people claiming transgenders are identical hormonally to the gender they are swapping to frustrate me. It's just not the case. There are a huge array of sex hormones aside from testosterone and estrogen (usually referring to e2 or estradiol) that have large impact on an individual. I don't really care what you do with your body, but don't be ignorant to the science of what you are changing / not changing.

Anyway, I am not suggesting in anyway that we discriminate against one group or another. But we should all do our part and try to learn the differences between eachother to better understand these issues.

EDIT: I am quite liberal and don't hate anyone. I just am frustrated at other liberals who opt to ignore science to push their own agendas.

EDIT2: It's really sad that I feel the need to actually have to post the first edit.

From the post:

But, could it possibly be that, we don't get to 50% of female employees in tech because, at present, they generally show less interest in those disciplines and are therefore less represented? No? Why should we aim to get to a 50% proportion if the proportion in the pool we are picking from is not even close to that? And why would 50% be a target anyway? The target should be to ensure that good people are hired and that they are able to work well together, regardless of the minority they might be in.

I think tech giants try hard to get that part right and to ensure that discriminations do not happen. Maybe the problem lies somewhere else: universities, or even at a younger age, in families (no we all know education has nothing to do with that kind of thing). Or maybe we could look at marketing and role models in our society. Maybe we just need time to let numbers even out, maybe there isn't even a problem to begin with, because females might actually be 5 times less likely to be naturally interested in tech. Who knows?

Be careful, you might be blacklisted! Remember, thoughtcrime is still crime.

Quote from another article: "All of these traits which the manifesto described as “female” are the core traits which make someone successful at engineering. Anyone can learn how to write code; hell, by the time someone reaches L7 or so, it’s expected that they have an essentially complete mastery of technique. The truly hard parts about this job are knowing which code to write, building the clear plan of what has to be done in order to achieve which goal, and building the consensus required to make that happen."

There are some good points in the memo - like having training and support for men, but it was largely an exercise in casting doubt on the ability of certain subset of your co-workers to do their job.

Everyone line up for the Google blood test that tells you what job you can have.

This seems to be reiterating almost exactly the points that the "manifesto" was making. Maybe people will actually read this one before responding without being primed for outrage by Gizmodo.

Some folks have set up donations for James Damore to help him until he finds new employment: https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/james-damore-official-fun...

Engineers should help engineers in times like these.