>> It seems clear to me that the manifesto author "raises into question the fundamental capability of every woman he works with".

> Could you quote the part of the manifesto that says so / gave this impression.

I did. The parts in quotes above are directly from the manifesto. He lists differences between sexes and claims one gender has "lower stress tolerance". That's a gross generalization that doesn't account for a lot of perception factors which I outlined in an above comment. He also prefaces that section by saying "these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech".

> As far as I can see the author is arguing average aptitudes in populations and consequent percentual representation of men and women not being 50/50. Not aptititudes of individuals

The author makes the claim that one sex's ineptitude in a modern role is, on average, rooted in biology. That's not supported by science.

Thanks for clarifying. Is it fair to say that you disagree with the author on whether the biological differences exist (and if they do the size of their effect on representation), not with the logical merit of the argument (group aptitude and preference affect representation)?

I can understand that position and think we can call it a day as i don't feel qualified to argue the size of the effect. It could very well be just 1%, i.e. 49/51.

If not

> "raises into question the fundamental capability of every woman he works with"

> The author makes the claim that one sex's ineptitude in a modern role is, on average, rooted in biology. That's not supported by science.

This does not follow from your argument.

Your argument only supports that the author questions the ability of every women who fails to get a job in the field / that modern role.

If it is proven that biological differences do not significantly impact modern role preference and capability, you and the author agree that representation should be 50/50. He never specifies how much of an influence he believes biological differences to have, just that there could be some.

I also disagree with your assertion that the author questions any individual womens aptitude based on her gender. He is talking averages across the general population, not applicants after all.

> Is it fair to say that you disagree with the author on whether the biological differences exist (and if they do the size of their effect on representation), not with the logical merit of the argument (group aptitude and preference affect representation)?

I agree there are biological differences. But, one can't cite these as reasons why certain women don't land tech roles. That remains unstudied and is highly subjective from many angles. The process of determining "what is success" is, in part, having organizations that have different values, a free market, and separate countries ever since the Peace of Westphalia.

This subthread is about whether the manifesto "raises into question the fundamental capability of every woman he works with"

You wrote,

> Your argument only supports that the author questions the ability of every women who fails to get a job in the field / that modern role.

Are we simply disagreeing about to whom the author is referring? Like, are you saying that the author isn't talking about his current coworkers, but rather candidates for that field / role?

How would you feel if you were a woman working with this guy? If he criticized your work, would you not feel he is pre-judging you based on biological precepts? Wouldn't it be lousy to work with someone who thought you were biologically not able to do the job well?

> If it is proven that biological differences do not significantly impact modern role preference and capability,

Nobody needs to prove that biological differences don't impact modern role capability. It hasn't been proven.

I don't need to prove to you that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. The burden of proof is on you to show that they do.

> you and the author agree that representation should be 50/50.

Not really. Men choosing to hire men over women is a factor. The author is still making a gross generalization even if his intention is to only criticize women who didn't land a tech role. And regardless of his intention, he has ostracized himself from working with many women. That is his burden, not women's.