Can we please stop using 'freedom of speech' in this context. Freedom of Speech in itself is from persecution from the Government. It does not apply here.

I disagree.

Freedom of speech, as in the legal right protected by the First Amendment in the United States, is indeed only against the government.

But free discourse, as an ideal and virtue for the citizens of a republic, is a much broader concept. The citizens of a democratic republic should be open to hearing new ideas and engaging in reasoned debate with each other.

Yes, but the beginning of those conversations can't be, "you're biologically inferior at doing the same job as me." That's not "engaging in reasoned debate", it's being an asshole.

We can have a discussion about the merits of public companies engaging in diversity programs without starting from that premise though.

> "you're biologically inferior at doing the same job as me."

If you think he said that, you didn't read the article.

Please take a look at your biases here; condensing the authors words to that of saying 'women are biologically inferior at doing the same job as men in tech' is not what the author has written. It may however be what you imagine him to be implying.

This is a strawman retort. The principle is far broader than that, it is about respect for the exchange of ideas. When a private company serves a public function, you can absolutely make an argument that an opinionated enforcement of speech restrictions infringes on the right to speak. The line is drawn between the right to speak vs the freedom not to listen. When you make that decision for others, freedom of speech is threatened.