I really don't understand your position at all, sorry.
You agree with Damore that the underlying issue is interest, not capability.
You say that biological influences on this are "not compelling enough to convince you of anything". Fine, but you offer no alternative explanation for why men find coding more interesting than women. If you have no better explanation, then the scientific papers that do provide an explanation would seem to take precedence, no?
You agree that women are more likely to like dollhouses than boys as children. But you haven't noticed or don't see the connection between what girls play with as children (dolls of babies, people) and the dominance of primary school education by girls? To me the connection is obvious. Girls are more interested in such jobs.
Finally, you say memos like Damore's are controversial if they're used to affect company policy because the problem it addresses is abstract and with many factors going into it. But this is not sufficient to make a memo controversial. Executives write memos on abstract and multi-faceted topics every day: the nature of the digital revolution, how best to motivate their workforce, etc. These memos are all designed to influence company policy around abstract topics.
So what you really mean when you say that Damore's memo is inappropriate for a workplace to be "going there" is that you wish to ban discussion of any gender diversity policies that are not Google's existing diversity policies. These policies are extreme, quite likely illegal and at the very least unfair to men.
This is why I described your views as extreme feminist. I know it won't seem that way to you, but feeling that nobody should even be allowed to voice disagreement to diversity policies - not even by citing science - simply because you feel it's "inappropriate"? That is to me an extremist position. It is the embodiment of intolerance.
You agree with Damore that the underlying issue is interest, not capability.
You say that biological influences on this are "not compelling enough to convince you of anything". Fine, but you offer no alternative explanation for why men find coding more interesting than women. If you have no better explanation, then the scientific papers that do provide an explanation would seem to take precedence, no?
You agree that women are more likely to like dollhouses than boys as children. But you haven't noticed or don't see the connection between what girls play with as children (dolls of babies, people) and the dominance of primary school education by girls? To me the connection is obvious. Girls are more interested in such jobs.
Finally, you say memos like Damore's are controversial if they're used to affect company policy because the problem it addresses is abstract and with many factors going into it. But this is not sufficient to make a memo controversial. Executives write memos on abstract and multi-faceted topics every day: the nature of the digital revolution, how best to motivate their workforce, etc. These memos are all designed to influence company policy around abstract topics.
So what you really mean when you say that Damore's memo is inappropriate for a workplace to be "going there" is that you wish to ban discussion of any gender diversity policies that are not Google's existing diversity policies. These policies are extreme, quite likely illegal and at the very least unfair to men.
This is why I described your views as extreme feminist. I know it won't seem that way to you, but feeling that nobody should even be allowed to voice disagreement to diversity policies - not even by citing science - simply because you feel it's "inappropriate"? That is to me an extremist position. It is the embodiment of intolerance.