Damore says that there are possible non-bias reasons that women display less affinity towards the tech industry thus possiblypartially explaining the difference in gender representation.
OK. So what do you believe is the logical course of action to take based on this? Since he mentioned diversity programs, presumably he thinks there is some logical link between his argument and some proposed course of action, though of course for any such proposed course someone will pop up and say that he didn't advocate that and obviously anyone claiming he did must never have read what he wrote.
Do you believe that, if this position were to be conceded for sake of argument, there would be any logical change to be made to, say, how Google approaches interviewing and hiring?
Stop illegally preferring less qualified women over more qualified men to meet quotas.
(Before i get straw manned, I'm NOT saying that all women at Google are less qualified, just that it does happen, and Google even apparently makes its diversity meetings secret)
The specific hiring approach Damore objected to was "reducing the false negative rate" for women.
A false negative in hiring occurs when a qualified candidate is rejected (as opposed to a false positive, where an unqualified candidate is hired). So Damore's objection was not to "preferring less qualified women", it was to an attempt to raise the proportion of qualified women being hired.
So I'm curious why you chose to jump to "preferring less qualified women".
Damore says that there are possible non-bias reasons that women display less affinity towards the tech industry thus possibly partially explaining the difference in gender representation.