[brianberns]

He suggested that biological differences between the sexes (rather than bias/discrimination) are the reason why women are underrepresented in the tech industry.

It’s not hard to understand why many people find this offensive.

Here’s the direct quote if you need it: “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.”

[haberman]

Damore's quote says "in part" and "may explain," suggesting the possibility of multiple causes, and making clear that there is uncertainty.

Your paraphrase says "the reason" and "rather than bias/descrimination", suggesting both certainty and only a single cause.

How do you reconcile this difference between your paraphrase and Damore's quote?

[brianberns]

That’s why I used the word “suggested”, which is exactly what he did, in a section prominently titled “Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech”.

[haberman]

He suggested that non-bias causes are possible contributing factors to the disparity, yes.

Nowhere does he suggest they are the only causes, or that bias/discrimination do not exist.

[brianberns]

Parsing his sentence for tiny nuances like that isn't very helpful IMHO, but I'll indulge you.

His exact words are "these differences may explain". He doesn't say "these differences may PARTLY explain". If I say that A may explain B, the reasonable implication is that A may fully explain B. So, yes, he does suggest that non-bias causes are the only causes.

Just to be clear: I don't think this makes any real difference. The reaction to his email would've been the same either way. But the fact remains that your interpretation of the quote isn't supported by the actual words he used.

[haberman]

If a holistic reading of Damore's memo reinforced the idea that he was trying to deny the possibility of bias/discrimination, then perhaps you could call your inference a "reasonable implication." But the opposite is true, Damore repeatedly tries to represent the uncertainty and possibility of multiple causes. This is true even in the single sentence you quoted.

Given this, I do not think it is a reasonable implication to turn "may explain" to "may fully explain."

It's hard for me to believe this distinction doesn't matter given that his critics always seem to specifically call out his "denial" of bias/discrimination when they want to paint him in the most unflattering light (even the NYT: https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1360626887035338752).