Politics is about how resources should be spent, not how things “ought” to be. Posting a disagreement about policy is inherently political, especially about something as charged as gender, no matter how much science you may cite.

> Politics is about how resources should be spent

> how things “ought” to be

Those are the same thing.

> Posting a disagreement about policy is inherently political

Yes if his memo was a paragraph saying "We should change our gender policy to X, Y, and Z", then yes it would be political.

Instead it is a 10 page document explaining how biological differences may explain gender imbalances, and the implications of this.

But sure if you want to dismiss it as "politics", then I guess there's no reasoning with you.

I don’t dismiss things by calling them political, although apparently you do. I just think it’s insanely naive to believe that you can write a 10 page document on a gender related company policy and not have it become political quickly.

You can’t post a 10 document article in response to a corporate policy about gender in hiring and not expect that to be interpreted as an argument against said policy. Whether or not that was his original intent doesn’t really matter, the interpretation of his post was both predictable and understandable. He should’ve seen that coming, and to argue that he was just apolitically interested in the science of gender is disingenuous.

> You can’t post a 10 document article in response to a corporate policy about gender in hiring and not expect that to be interpreted as an argument against said policy.

The memo certainly challenged Google's corporate policy. So what? You think anyone who has an opposing view on a corporate policy and can back their view up with facts and evidence should be fired?

Personally I'm not big on authoritarianism/totalitarianism, but maybe that's just me.

You’re absolutely making up my point, which is extremely annoying.

All I’m saying is that arguing about policy is politics. That’s it.

Decisions about resources make no sense except in the context of trying to achieve some effect. Political issues are almost always implicitly about how things "ought" to be; the resource decisions are in service of those goals.

Resource allocation is more concrete and direct than discussions about how society ought to be arranged, although you’re right that you allocate resources in order to achieve a desired social outcome.

Discussions about how society ought to be tend to be vague and aspirational: “society ought to be more just” is more vague than “we should spend more money on these programs”. The latter might serve the former, but it’s also specific and actionable, which is why I draw the distinction where I do.