Of course I'm not going to get fired for saying that publicly.
I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard. It seems to me to be primarily caused by societal expectations which are enforced starting from a young age.
When one of those recent Star Wars movies came out (I haven't seen any of them, so I might get the details wrong), and one of the leads was a Latino guy, I saw a few interviews with Latinx fans basically saying the same thing--"now I can see myself as the hero of the story".
Representation matters.
I'm... confused why you decided this was a valid argument. Nobody said that anybody would assume this. The point of the other comment was that young Latino kids are used to seeing white males as the protagonists in stories, but seeing a Latino guy as a protagonist has altered how they perceive themselves.
Yep, the links between testosterone and hierarchy/drive/dominance have been established for decades. Its effects can be examined between males, and across multiple species, but there's actually no natural imperative which drives men in this regard. Come on man.
Of course hormones mean nothing. You think it's adrenaline making your heart beat stronger when you think you're in danger, or is it really social constructs all the way down?
There isn't such as thing as true objectivity.
We shouldn't even aim for objectivity.
War is peace.
Maybe in the future consider adding to the discussion constructively instead of resorting to silly (baseless) hyperbolic rhetoric.
But hormones are only a part of the story, and I think they're less important than maybe you do. I don't think the defense of "but testosterone!" is a valid explanation for the incredible disparity in representation we see in the upper echelons of society. Yes, it plays a role, but it isn't everything.
Most leadership positions are held by men, and I think that the way younger people (or people "lower in the hierarchy" I suppose) perceive this is more important than the natural inclinations due to hormonal differences. And that's what I meant by my use of the word "significantly" in my original comment. Not that the biological imperatives don't exist, but that they are not significant when compared to the societal imperatives.
Is it? You presume male employees see themselves in their bosses. If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!"
It's possible that they don't, which may explain why we don't see a lot of openly gay executives, for example. Remember when Tim Cook came out? He was the only openly gay Fortune 500 CEO. It was fairly recent, so I can't imagine a significant change has happened yet, but it's possible that more closeted gay executives may come out, which in turn may encourage younger people to pursue leadership roles like these.
I'm not saying it's an absolute thing — I mean, Tim Cook was able to get where he is without having a gay CEO to look up to. But having that representation may help those who are slightly less determined (but still qualified). You see what I mean?
First, you have biological differences between men and women. These are reasonably well characterized, and the sorts of psychological differences that might impact the workplace are small but present. It's still very difficult to get into specifics, however, as definitions/measuring is difficult (lots of room for error here) but the thesis of 'this may be relevant, and we should be able to discuss this' is supported.
Then you have the various stereotypes about men and women that we observe in the current population. There's a lot of nuance here and, again, a lot of room to confirm your own biases, but on the whole there are certainly differences. The question is mostly nature vs. nurture and how much of this is cultural historical artifact.
The problem comes from trying to explain the latter with the former. This is difficult to do in a scientific way; the essay mentions castration and some cultural practices that can suggest some aspects of this relationship, but it's a far cry from being generally explanatory. It's all terribly specific and contextual and the state of the art is so far away from explaining bias/discrimination in hiring/employment that it's arguably not worth mentioning.
The equality/diversity contradiction is a good enough point to make, but it doesn't accomplish much. The real thesis is that Google's hiring practices are discriminatory, but there's not a clear scientific answer to that at all. Aiming for rough equality seems like a conservative approach; the distributions for these metrics suggest something like single-digit-percent differences between populations of men and women (i.e. lots of overlap due to variance). A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory.
A 'worst-case' for discrimination against men seems very likely far less severe than the current state of discrimination against women where 9:1 ratios are not unheard of. And this is certainly a wonderful opportunity for debate and may not be correct, it currently is not proven to be incorrect by any stretch, and thus it cannot be claimed that the hiring practices are discriminatory.
The essay actually touches on these points.
What makes it controversial is that we can't know HOW MUCH it contributes.
It's very bad to use this factor as a basis for discrimination.
It's awesome to use differentiating factors that we already know of to make our collective spaces better and more accepting of everyone.
I wanted to say "Hi, the rain really is beautiful, isn't it". But I didn't know if she associated the rain with painful trigger emotions, so I didn't.
I wanted to say "Hi". But I didn't know if she spoke English, and I didn't want to discriminate against people who don't, so I didn't.
I wanted to say "Hi" in all the possible languages of the world. But I didn't want to discriminate against deaf people, so I didn't. If she was deaf, would she not have been offended?
So in the end, in this fictional story, I didn't say anything at all.
There is no certain knowledge, there are only distributions. I know nothing, and I am learning more all the time. But I do the best I can based on my past experiences.
A bayesian approach to the world, will not neglect what you know; but it will update your model rapidly based on new information, perhaps information specific to the person that you are interacting with.
Communication is impossible without good faith.
So, the next time someone asks you if you speak Spanish, tell them you do not, and use the opportunity to show them the world that is uniquely you. Let your identity have an integrity that YOU own. The next time they see a person who looks Spanish, they might approach it differently. And they'll also remember that Spanish looking people are nice people to interact with.