James Damore argued that the gender gap in the tech industry was not due to discrimination, but rather to biological differences between men and women. I don't think this equals to anti-diversity.
Except that it is. What passes as a cold, rational analysis of cold, scientific facts is rooted on traditionalist biases of the conservative mindsets of scientists in the XIXth century, when the basis of our social sciences were being established. Colonialism and sexism were seen as common-sense a prioris, and those positions permeate a lot of the reasonings and conclusions achieved in these sciences without being put to test (see e.g. myths about the primitive hunter men and gatherer women, or how money originates from barter, which are passed as truisms when studying these disciplines without questioning).
Colonialism and sexism are inherently anti-diversity; and people stating those opinions and usually unable to see how their position derivates from those premises.
To riff on your rather bold assertion: precluding such a hypothesis from consideration is rooted in activist biases of the radical mindset of non-scientists in the 21st century.
Now, assuming that those minimum physical differences have an impact on social behaviour is sexist, because it fails to recognize the social reinforcement mechanisms that influence those decisions, from the structural separation of professional disciplines (i.e. the hard vs soft sciences divide, which dissipates when using multidisciplinary teams) to the social inertia of lower salaries of caretaking professions traditionally assigned to women.
BTW, assuming that these observations are produced from irrational anti-scientifism is the kind of blind spot of traditionalists that I was referring above.
One can be anti-sexist and believe in sex differences writ large at the same time.
One example of such differences: https://www.science.org/content/article/pregnancy-resculpts-...
It seems more sexist to assume that differences mean one sex is better or worse. Let's let the whole richness of reality come forward, and embrace it for what it is.
You’re welcome to the opinion, but denying obvious, observable, verifiable reality because it fails to fit your dogmatic model of the world is not science; co-opting science and denying biological reality in service of your activism is far closer to both colonialism and sexism than any of the views you’re arguing against.
It can be argued that the cause of those differences are social, instead of biological. But I'll note that
1. mental is rooted in physical too (e.g. hormones)
2. the sex differences can be seen cross-culturally
To bring it back to the initial “Women don’t want to code, because they’re genetically repulsed by it” argument, whe know this isn’t true, because it changed in living memory.
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/07/1141358586/women-coders-progr...
Those women engineered novel software systems to fit the given specifications, fixed bugs, invented the term 'bug', designed usable programming languages, and even invented the methodology of software validation that took men to the moon. Simply put, women created the pragmatic discipline of software engineering before male mathematicians and physicists devoted much thought to it, as it was deemed an activity accessory to hardware design.
The profession was then taken over by men when it became prestigious, not in a small part because of all this. None of this cultural change was caused by genetic determinism.