Pardon me, but this is in(s)ane.
WHO ELSE BUT WOMEN BEARS CHILDREN?
Apologies, but I had to get that out of my system.
"Women are the only part of the human species capable of bearing children"
versus defining them by that role:
"Women are childbearers"
... where the latter construction has a strong connotation that that's all or even primarily what they are. I think that's problematic.
I'm not sure, but I think GP might have perceived that in the writing they're referring to.
From TFA: "Women bear children; men do not". There is no other mention of this gender difference.
Why on earth would you bring up "Women are childbearers" and this interpretation of "defining them by that role"?
However, his very next paragraph is about the lack of childcare on Apple's new campus and what it says about SV. I think any reasonable, charitable reader would have to infer from that that he is not expressing an interest in women leaving the workforce to raise children. My prediction is that the least reasonable, least charitable voices will intentionally misinterpret and misrepresent what he has said.
I didn't get that interpretation at all. The way I understood it, he was saying that there are differences between men and women -- some biological in origin, some social -- and the solution requires we acknowledge these differences instead of pretending they don't exist.