He literally said the exact opposite of this.
Why are you purposefully misrepresenting his views? And if not purposefully, why are you then commenting on a story whose main source (the document) you haven't read?
Because they're outraged by what they've heard about it and demand that someone (almost without question) facilitate that outrage, correct or not.
He was offering a different explanation, based on group averages, of why the industry is unable to reach a 50/50 ratio of male/female engineers. And most of his arguments were based on interests, not abilities.
That's very different from the way it's been mischaracterized as an argument that women are inferior.