The Kolmogorov option

It's not equality of results, it's equality of opportunity.

You can get the same initial chance to prove your ability at basketball as he did. You can even get a slight boost to compensate for things (maybe he was a lot more motivated, or maybe he got some practice in the 'hood). And it'll turn out you have no skills/talent/ability, you're not 2 meters high, and so on.

Now, with sports, it's not a problem if we don't spend more than a few seconds of thought on trying to create equal opportunities, because with competitive sports the point is exactly to not have equal outcomes.

But with broad categories like jobs/career, income, wealth, political/legal/professional representation, we pretty much want to make sure that if one gender is underrepresented then it's not hurting us all on the long run. It might turn out that yeah, women don't really like tech, and those few who do are very welcome, men can behave around them, and those instances of sexism are just the expected rare problems that do happen in every other walks of life. But so far, it seems that it's very much not the case.

Appreciate you trying to share some insight. But from the hype, I was expecting some kind of world changing revelation. But basically you're just explaining the basics of bayesian statistics?

A lot of people already know this stuff. It's part of an intro course in probability/stats that you'd take while doing a CS degree, or a course about experiments for other science degrees.

The simplest way I can think of putting it is as follows: Say there was a chemical plant dumping large amounts of radioactive waste into a stream, and the population nearby is experiencing an increased incidence rate of cancer. People call on the plant to stop polluting, and the owner cites some papers showing that cancer has other causes too. Those studies would be completely irrelevant, and a clear attempt by the plant to find an excuse to not stop polluting.

That the participation rate of women in software is experiencing a sharp decline in recent decades, mostly in the US, (while, say, women participation in physics is on the rise) is an undisputed fact; that women working in software companies report abuse is a similarly undisputed facts. That is the problem we're trying to solve. That there may be contributing immutable biological factors is completely irrelevant. The main difference between this and the chemical plant analogy is that while there is no doubt that there are causes of cancer other than exposure to radioactive waste, the studies the author of the manifesto cites are very much controversial on purely scientific grounds, plus he clearly does not understand their context (e.g. that women in liberal countries prefer to work less etc. is no indication whatsoever of any innate factors).

But the main problem is this: Damore is no expert on the subject. His belief that the studies he cites are relevant is based on a layman's intuition, which is wrong in this case, as in many others. Explaining exactly the problems is much harder than bringing up ridiculous hypothesis by people unfamiliar with the subject like Damore. If you want to know exactly what the issue is (and I doubt Damore does, because he clearly read no research on marginalization of women), you should read actual scholarship on the subject, and not rants by some random guy.