[steveklabnik]

> I thought "essentialism" was anathema in contemporary diversity circles.

You are absolutely right that essentialism is not generally accepted any more, but you're mistaking essentialism a bit. Essentialism is not 'women do things differently than men,' essentialism is 'Women are x.'

As an example, certain feminists don't believe that trans women are women, because they are not born with sexual organs that are the essence of 'woman.'

In contrast, population thinking would assert some number of a portion of a population has some trait, but it's not required, or 'essential.' Saying that 'many women have vaginas' is not an essentialist statement, it's a population-ist one.

Therefore, "many women approach problems differently than many men" is not essentialst. "All women _must_ approach problems differently than men" is essentialist.

[cantastoria]

But the author is stating that "woman are x" by stating they bring more "cognitive diversity" to a team. In order for this to be true, woman in fact "must" approach problems differently than men or there would be no diversity benefit (whatever that may be in this case).

[steveklabnik]

If it's not a rigorous philosophical work, people will not be very precise with their qualifiers.

For example, in the previous sentence, I said 'people' and not 'most people.' Especially in the social sciences, people assume you're discussing populations, and words like 'most' impede clarity more than aid it.

That said, I don't know the author, and they may be a gender essentialist; they do still exist.