Not at all. Damore's memo was reasonable, accurate, and the criticism of it has been, like yours, entirely without substance.
The Wikipedia article on Damore's memo lists a number of substantive criticisms[0]. For convenience, I'll list them here:
This Vox article[1] gives a brief background of Damore's argument from biological essentialism. It references the general consensus that the premise (that cultural and sociological gender roles result from innate and immutable differences in gender biology and neurology) has been discredited[2,3], as well as a Stanford research paper[4] which concludes “Through a rather constructivist approach most studies show that no scientific experiment has proved the existence of systematic and/or significant biological sex differences in most cognitive functions.”
This BBC article[5] mentions a criticism by a cognitive scientist, This Intelligencer article[6] lists numerous criticisms and rebuttals by scientists, referencing this Quora article by an evolutionary scientist[7], and another criticism from studies of gender and STEM[8].
Now, that's as many as I've been willing to list because I'm now thoroughly bored of hunting down sources, but there are many others I haven't listed if you want to do the research yourself. Now granted, wikipedia also lists a number of counter-criticisms, but that alone doesn't render the criticism invalid, it merely demonstrates the existence of a controversy.
I'm leaving this comment here for future reference, and referring to it every time I notice someone bringing up the myth that Damore's memo is based on rock-solid, unassailable science, or that no "substantive" criticisms have or can been made.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
[1]https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fire...
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/...
[3]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/07/silico...
[4]http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/images/TR3_Stereotyp...
[5]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40865261
[6]https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/some-scientific-argu...
[7]https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio...
[8]https://www.vox.com/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-...
> He uses primarily stereotyped misconceptions about men and women to argue that “gender gaps [do not always] imply sexism,” and declares that “discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech” is “misguided and biased” as well as “unfair, divisive, and bad for business.”
The question of stereotyping is addressed in the memo itself:
> I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this,then we can never truly solve the problem.
Can you point to where in Damore's memo he relies on stereotyped misconceptions? I've read it many times and I didn't see anything fitting that characterization.
Specificity would be helpful.
Where people have made scientific claims I've asked them for the source of their information. This is a reasonable question - not a "demand".
When someone replies to you citing another argument, it's reasonable to read that argument and to point out any flaws in it if you see them. That's what I did here. Was I not supposed to read it?
My argument doesn't rely on any citation other than Damore's memo itself, since it is the topic of discussion. I've already provided a link to that but here it is again for convenience: [1]
I followed the witch hunt against Damore very closely both at the time and since.
Without exception, every single critique I've read of Damore's memo is either a straw man, ad hominem, or a combination of both.
If you know of any counterexamples I'm happy to review them, but please pick the strongest argument rather than a long list[2]
[1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...