It didn't censor what I read though. I read the memo fully. I thought it wasn't particularly interesting. Then I saw who did. I'm not sure what you think I missed.

Well his sum up suggests two things: If we are to be truly free and diverse, we shouldn't expect perfect representation everywhere (ie. may be it's not a problem that 50% of lumberjacks aren't women), and to make engineering more diverse, the current approach (positive discrimination) is unfair, we should instead embrace gender differences and modify methodology in IT to be more female oriented, he suggests pair programming based on psychological research indicating women are more people oriented, and men more thing oriented. There is no value judgment there, just a sound, scientifically literate approach to change.

I'll put it another way: if you found his memo non interesting, you are not interested in science, in making the workplace more diverse, in being fair and open, and you will have no part in whistle-blowing.

I found it not interesting because it didn't feel very scientific like you said. It sounded like a high schooler's argument and was cited like one. Your condescending tone is appreciated.

Well I think those things are important and interesting. Your appreciation of "sounding like" is failing you and us on our road to inclusivity.