So people who disagree with you "haven't hit certain developmental milestones"?
If you (a woman, let's say) hear Chris say, "fewer women are able to be good engineers than men," and treat that the same as, "You are not a good engineer," then you're wrong about what was said and what was meant. You'd be lacking the ability to perform a basic act of reading comprehension in certain contexts.
Relatedly, many people can't think about population distributions in a sensible way in any context.
Another is the inability to handle a statement like "There might be a smaller proportion of men suitable for engineering because of biology." Clearly there's some chance it's true, but plenty of people will say there's no chance that the proportions aren't identical by gender. Which is an absolutely crazy thing to think, because there's like, some chance you're wrong.
But Damore didn't say either of those things.
That mindset is not particularly more intellectual or rational than not having read the full memo. If a politician says:
I'm not a liberal, and all of my best friends are conservatives, but I'm going to vote in support of abortion rights and universal healthcare
-- are constituents being obtuse if they perceive that their representative is in fact a liberal?
I'm not a man, and all of my best friends are women, but I'm going to have a prostate checkup tomorrow after football training.
then calling them a man instead of a transwoman who happens to enjoy football is definitely inconsiderate.
I agree that you don't always have to believe someone's self-characterization, but it is usually polite to still go along with it.
OK, we don't need to get into a debate about transgender issues and laws. Your analogy feels deeply flawed in several other ways, though. If someone's best friends are all women, that has...what exactly to do with whether that person is a man or a woman? If you see someone playing football who looks and claims to be a woman, you'd still think that her playing football is evidence that she might possibly be a man? Seriously?
In any case, someone's gender identity is not something likely that directly impacts me. If someone claims to be a man, I have the option of being "polite" and to "go along with it", whatever the hell that means. Or I don't even have to bring the issue up at all.
But if I'm a conservative voter whose Republican House member keeps voting for universal health care and limitations on gun ownership, the situation isn't one where politeness is part of my decision making process. My Congressmember's behavior and beliefs, unlike Pat's gender identity, affects my rights and livelihood as an American citizen. I don't have to believe he is truly represents my Republican preferences on the basis of his stated party affiliation, or him swearing on his Bible that he truly is a Republican even as he votes against gun rights/abortion regulations/lower taxes/etc, etc.
Likewise, Google's management does not have to believe that Damore sincerely values diversity, if they believe what he actually says in his memo reflects someone hostile to Google's diversity efforts and goals. It is not "inconsiderate" for Google's execs to read between the lines of Damore's various claims and rhetorical arguments. Damore is a Google employee who believes he is doing the right thing by taking a moral stand against Google's management, he didn't ask to be politely coddled.
I'm not sure what your assumptions are. That James Damore, who is politically conservative but who asserts themselves to be pro-diversity, is not objectively pro-diversity, but is just a sadly confused/deluded conservative? That I'm not obligated to believe that James Damore is pro-diversity, nor acknowledge that identity to him other than out of polite consideration?
OK, we don't need to get into a debate about political discrimination issues and laws. Your analogy feels deeply flawed in several other ways, though. If someone's best friends are all conservatives, that has...what exactly to do with whether that person is a liberal or a conservative? If you see someone voting for universal healthcare who claims to be a conservative, you'd still think that them voting for universal healthcare is evidence that they might possibly be a liberal? Seriously?
In any case, someone's political affiliation is not something likely that directly impacts me. If someone claims to be a liberal, I have the option of being "polite" and to "go along with it", whatever the hell that means. Or I don't even have to bring the issue up at all.
But if I'm a woman whose fitness club member keeps suggesting having a football game and uses the showers with obviously male anatomy, the situation isn't one where politeness is part of my decision making process. My fitness club member's behavior and beliefs, unlike Damore's political affiliation, affects my comfort and virtue as a loving wife. I don't have to believe she is truly a woman on the basis of her stated gender, or her pointing out her choice of dress even as she engages in all kinds of inappropriate behavior.
Likewise, the National Organization for Women's management does not have to believe that Pat is sincerely a woman, if they believe what she actually does reflects someone hostile to NOW's female empowerment efforts and goals. It is not "inconsiderate" for NOW's execs to read between the lines of Pat's various activities. Pat is a NOW employee who believes she is doing the right thing by taking a moral stand against NOW's management, she didn't ask to be politely coddled.
Not sure what we're arguing about anymore. You said [0] you've seen "lots of comments on HN that interpreted [Damore] as saying something indistinguishable from those things [e.g. fewer women are able to be good engineers than men)."
I replied with what was not meant to be a direct disagreement (I don't doubt you've seen those comments), but to suggest that someone can read Damore's memo and by reading between the lines , argue that Damore was asserting/implying things even as he didn't literally say them. This includes thinking that Damore is anti-diversity even if he claims to be pro-diversity, because some people who act very racist have been known to claim that they are not racist and that they have many friends of different racial groups. That's all.
I get that Damore supporters don't have to agree with how anti-Damore folks have chosen to interpret and paraphrase Damore's memo. I argue only that it's hypocritical to dismiss such arguments-via-interpretation (especially since Damore used it when referring to articles and studies).
I know if I thought everybody thought I was stupid because of my race, or gender, or some other crap like that, because "Science," and they were forming expectations by it and were wrong but there was nothing I could do about it... it would really suck, and I might want to stay home. (It would be stupid to stay home, because there's a perfectly good golf course across the street from HQ, but I digress...) The magnitude of their reaction is very understandable.