> you cannot have a person going around with their thesis that women are objectively inferior engineers

Did you read his memo[1]? That's not really what he's saying. He's ham-handedly trying to look for reasons that explain the gender gap in engineering. His thesis is that fewer women want to do that kind of work than men, not that those who do take the job are worse at it.

> That person has to be fired (directly into the sun, when practical).

Meow!

[1] https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/...

His "memo" is a self-serving retcon of real events, which conveniently (for him) elides most of the insane things he said internally on mailing lists, Google+ posts, and in person.

Damore was very clear that he did not believe women are objectively inferior engineers. What should we take away from the fact that so many repeat something he did not say and did not mean, and what should we do with people who misrepresent someone's easily accessible views? In fact, he thought it was so important that people understood that he was not saying this that near the beginning of his memo, he posted an image of two overlapping normal distributions that makes his point (wrong or right) very clear.

I think the fact that people have to resort to misunderstanding and misleading about what people like him say is very telling about the "religious" status of these beliefs. You see the same type of apologetics when Christians try to attack atheism.

NB: This post is not an endorsement of anything Damore said.

> their thesis that women are objectively inferior engineers

This is not even remotely what the memo said. The thesis of the memo is that not every gender disparity is due to bias or discrimination, and that directives to achieve equitable outcomes run a real risk of causing discrimination.

If someone said that men make up 90% of murder convictions not because the courts and police are biased against men, but because men commit 90% of murders, is that sexist against men?