> His hiring “calls into question parts of our system of inclusion at Apple, including hiring panels, background checks, and our process to ensure our existing culture of inclusion is strong enough to withstand individuals who don’t share our inclusive values,” they write. So they want to exclude someone for having different opinions to them, in the name of inclusivity? Clown world.
When the "different opinion" involves proclaiming that a whole class of your fellow workers are "soft, weak and full of $#!+" then yes, you should be resolutely excluded from positions of authority since you have willingly forfeited the kind of trust that's required for any such role. Let this guy stay in a pure engineering/IC role if he wants, but he should not be in a management position.
"British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in that postapocalypse, doing whatever work—be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun blast to someone’s back— required doing"
In other words he is comparing personalities and attitudes, not making generalisations about literally all women. But the subset of women he is generalising about are exactly the sort who are now trying to make him unemployable by quoting him out of context (i.e. being "full of shit") and demanding that Apple shield them (i.e. "cosset") by getting rid of a guy who finds other kinds of women more attractive. They also appear to be objecting to a passage that states something about the murder rate and naming of high schools in a particular area, which is presumably factual? So, they're kind of proving his point for him.