[bduerst]

>He didn't really say women were less capable, though (biologically or otherwise).

Did you read the memo?

>>I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

[aianus]

That says nothing about the abilities of his female coworkers who are already working at Google and who are already in the minority there.

He's saying that going full steam ahead trying anything and everything to get to 50/50 may be impossible without lowering the bar for women which is bad for everyone.

[bduerst]

So which is it then? You're going from "He didn't say that about women" to "He said that about women but he didn't mean that about his women coworkers" - i.e. no true scotsman.

Even so, Damore did not specifically say that about "non-coworker women", he said it about women.

[sjdhvsi]

One is the distribution of the entire population, the other is a tiny and non representative sample. Take a probability class if that is hard for you to understand.

[aianus]

If :

A) For every woman in the general population who is qualified and wants to work at Google, there are two men (for whatever reasons)

B) the observed ratio at Google is two men per woman

Then, together, A and B are consistent with a belief that the women that currently work at Google are just as qualified and interested as the men.

[Chris2048]

That quote doesn't support the statement "women are less capable", since it refers to 'distribution of abilities'; whereas 'less capable' would usually be interpreted as a statement about averages.