> "When a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men"
  > 
  > In no way is that referring to "complaining that gender issues are taken too seriously?"

Read the link cited with that sentence and you might understand it better. That also is a complete misreading of that sentence.

It is saying that gender issues which affect men are not taken seriously and are discarded. To quote the associated sources TL;DR

  Both genders have issues

Also:

  > The thrust of his argument is that the gender gap can be entirely explained by personal choices or innate qualities.

Let me emphasize the TL;DR from the memo for you, since you have seemed to miss it.

  Differences in distributions of traits between men and women ***may in part explain*** why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

Honest question, why is it so hard to accept that his position might be nuanced?

    > Read the link cited with that sentence and you might understand it
    better. It is saying that gender issues which affect men are not taken
    seriously and are discarded.

I wonder what gender issue Damore found himself facing. Homelessness? Murder? And when he raised those issues he was labeled a misogynist? That doesn't seem to fit.

It's hard to accept that there is nuance in the memo, because it's only found in broad sentences like this one:

    > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part
    explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and
    leadership.

There's nothing wrong with this sentence. The trouble is that he never concretely addresses reasons for the gender gap other than innate traits. There is some nuance in his memo, but there isn't enough.

What about all these documented biases? Surely these are affecting womens' careers too:

* Men get better assignments. https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-ro...

* People assume mothers to be inherently less competent and less committed than fathers. https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-ro...

* Women negotiate as often as men, but face pushback when they do. https://womenintheworkplace.com/

* Women get less access to senior leaders. https://womenintheworkplace.com/

* Women ask for feedback as often as men, but are less likely to receive it. https://womenintheworkplace.com/

* Women get less useful feedback than men. https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-vague-feedback-is-holding-w...

* Women get criticized more than men. http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...

* Women are more frequently characterized as “too agressive”. https://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in...

* Women leaders face higher standards and lower rewards than men leaders. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind

* Women leaders are perceived as competent or liked, but rarely both. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind

* Women’s code is accepted more often than men’s, but only if gender is hidden. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35559439

Sure, he says that innate traits are only part of the cause. But the rest of his essay implies they are the primary cause.

I felt like responding this bit seperately:

  > I wonder what gender issue Damore found himself facing. 
  Homelessness? Murder? And when he raised those issues he 
  was labeled a misogynist? That doesn't seem to fit.

because its bluntly, quiet tone def. In many ways much more tone def than the memo. "Dalmore could not have possibly had a negative experience that had to do with male gender issues".

Being a "nerd" he almost assuredly deals with and has delt with male gender issues such as "lacking masculinity" his entire life.

Playing a game of "my problems worse than yours". Or "your problems are trivial" is not a great way to win over an audience wouldn't you agree?

You're right, I was missing this. I followed his hyperlink[0] and immediately started reading section 10.1, but he probably meant section 10.3. In that case I'll have to retract what I said. Thanks for putting me straight.

[0] https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-femini...

His memo absolutely fails to mention the biases women deal with on a daily bases. It fails to mention how unjust such things can be and how they must make his female colleagues feel. And that such things are well supported by research.

That failure makes his audience significantly less receptive, and puts them on the immediate defense. He should spend some serious time reading "Difficult Conversations" and other books of it's ilk. As much as he wants to avoid feelings, feelings always matter. Hence the justified accusation of his memo being "tonedef".

And you are not considering the context in which it was written, or are missing key statements like:

  > For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the
  extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to 
  differential treatment and the authoritarian element 
  that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal 
  representation.

For him it is clearly table stakes that women are discriminated against. He doesn't feel the need to argue it because he, and the Google culture which he is addressing, finds it so imminently obvious.

Something he states. Multiple times. Throughout the document.

  > Sure, he says that innate traits are only part of the cause. But the rest of his essay implies they are the primary cause.

The weight [of the research on the matter](http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-thing...) (a significant amount of it) indicates that interests are a primary driver in the discrepancy:

  Therefore, from the inter-individual perspective,the 
  individuals who pursue STEM careers are more likely to 
  be male than female. For example, assuming that 
  individuals within the highest 25% of a population 
  interest distribution are likely to make occupational 
  choices consistent with an interest type, the number of 
  women entering the engineering occupation, then, is only 
  19.5% of the number of men entering the field. This 
  percentage is very similar to the actual female–male 
  ratio of individuals employed in engineering. In science 
  and mathematics interest distributions, the female–male 
  ratios in the upper 25% asymptote are 0.60 and 0.64, 
  respectively. However, the actual female–male ratio of 
  individuals employed in the field of physical sciences 
  is only about 0.40 and, in mathematics, it is about 
  0.45. This discrepancy between interest data and real 
  employment composition indicates that there may be 
  reasons other than sex differences in interests that can 
  account for gender disparity in science and mathematics.

A few observations though:

1) Google tends to pull a lot from Science and Math, not just engineering, in the "tech world". Dalmore is one such individual. This indicates the ratio should be much more skewed to an even makeup.

2) Even without that Google is still pretty "male" compared to what the research indicates.

3) Research on interests is largely still post social, so we don't really have a good feeling for the biological vs social components that drive the interest rates we see today. We know some pre-social effects exist, but we don't really have a good grasp on the magnitude of such effects. His memo fails to make this differentiation.

Thanks, you're right. Although the rebuttal I posted addresses the memo point-by-point, it similarly fails to reach the intended audience.

Btw, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but your block quote seems to make the opposite point that you think it does. You said the research "indicates that interests are a primary driver in the discrepancy," but the quote said:

    This discrepancy between interest data and real employment
    composition indicates that there may be reasons other than
    sex differences in interests that can account for gender
    disparity in science and mathematics.