Ingeniero de Google desata polémica tras cuestionar igualdad de género

The OP’s argument is that rigid political orthodoxy obscures biological involvement in social issues, said orthodoxy is enforced with fanatical religious fervor, and that dissension is punished in the harshest possible terms. Regardless of the degree to which he’s right or wrong on points, you, by detailing the degree to which you would punish him for his intransigence, have literally proven his argument. Good job.

-Punch you in the face
-Nobody will collaborate with you
-Creator of hostile environment
This emotional response rather makes me wonder about the authoritative “ideological echo chamber” the manifesto author was referring to.
Let’s embrace difference of opinion, and if needs be, argue it down with logic and facts. It seems that was attempt this post was at least aspiring to do but apparently in such an unsatisfactory manner that the writer had to take such emotional and non-intellectual jibe.

I like how you portray the author as a poor excuse for a human being, all the while claiming some moral high-ground as a senior engineer at the God-like company which is Google. You have no moral high-ground when you build a strawman out of what the author of the manifesto has written.
First of all, it was an internal piece not meant for outside perspective and therefore you cannot claim that the author speaks for the company. Speaking for the company would actually be the only relevant criticism you could have brought in this piece.
Secondly, other than your family, friends, and your usual reader base no one really cares about your position at Google and what you did there. Working as a senior staff member at a company does not give you more authority when responding to a political criticism of the company — not unless your position was political and relating to HR.
I won’t bother reading the manifesto to its end, as my response relates to your interpretation of that manifesto and the points you raised in your piece.
Ideological echo-chamber
It is well known that the tech field leans heavily to the political-left with its management and much of its staff. Many companies advertise and create the company culture based on the ideals propagated by the political left. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but cannot be discarded as not relevant criticism. From the little I’ve read of the article you linked, this is at the core of the criticism.
(1) Despite speaking very authoritatively, the author does not appear to understand gender.
No one does. The trend today is to obfuscate gender because it might hurt the feelings of some individuals. research is deemed offensive and researchers who are interested in the field are being castrated out of scientific communities for the offense of wrong-think.
Universities have courses on gender-studies, that seems to go against much of the research that was being done in the past, and asserts nonsense as though it is fact, without any basis in scientific study or logic.
(2) Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering.
Neither do you, apparently. You speak as though Google is the only tech company in existence and there isn’t any variation in the field. You also romanticized the tech industry and how the workflow dictates behavior and culture.
(3) And most seriously, the author does not appear to understand the consequences of what he wrote, either for others or himself.
There are no consequences. There are, however, offended individuals who can’t comprehend the notion that someone might have a different opinion than the one they hold. I believe this is what the author meant by echo-chamber.
Seeing as you didn’t bother to debunk any of his points, other than to write “no, you’re wrong” without any citation of any kind, I’ll just return your own criticism of “you don’t understand gender.” The majority of the rest of your piece deals with your own perspective on engineering and the tech field in general. Even there you don’t bother to substantiate any of the claims you make.
I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.
So you claim he is wrong and deplorable, while not knowing for yourself that anything he’s written is actually wrong. You just rely on your own perception of reality and your ideology to claim moral superiority over the individual. Very professional.
Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers.
Collaboration: yes. Cooperation: yes. Empathy: no.
No one in a work environment should be required to empathize with anyone else. This is not an environment to share feelings and emotions. I seriously doubt your credentials in the field if you actually believe that the employer is required to care about the marital problems of his employees or what the customer had for breakfast and how it affects his diet.
The employer should also not care that the company is 80% male, female, white, blue, green, or red. He should only care that the best candidate for the job was hired and with the appropriate salary for his position and merits.
It’s true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people’s emotional needs and so on — this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones.
You care to show me a citation for that assertion or should I just believe your perspective because you were some superstar while working at Google? How exactly emotions and attention to people’s needs make anyone a better employee? Should we start the “dick measuring competition” of who has the better credentials to assert something without basis in fact?
What you just did was incredibly stupid and harmful. You just put out a manifesto inside the company arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their jobs
Cry me a river. Would you say the same if another individual made a different manifesto pushing the idea that there aren’t enough disabled black transgender lesbians who identify as a non-binary, non-gender individual? Or would you applause the initiative for “fighting the good fight” because it fits into your ideology? In both instances, the person can be seen criticizing their coworkers.
And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company, causing other people to get up and say “wait, is that right?”
Do you have any sort of personal perspective? You started your piece criticizing the man for asserting that the company is an echo-chamber, only to describe how it is an echo-chamber. You suppress the author personal perspective, because to you, it’s too harmful to exist. What if I believe that your perspective is too dangerous to exist? Should I or anyone else have the power to silence you?
the fact that you did that has caused significant harm to people across this company, and to the company’s entire ability to function.
How? By hurting some people feelings? They’ll get over it. Some will just think of him as an idiot or an asshole and in a week they’ll stop caring. What is the travesty that was done here, exactly?
I am no longer even at the company and I’ve had to spend half of the past day talking to people and cleaning up the mess you’ve made.
Get over yourself. You are not as special as you believe yourself to be.
At that point, I gave up on your pathetic and emotional diatribe. Your piece is devoid of any logic, reason, or sense and serves as a way for you to virtue-signal to the rest of the world how much of a “stand-up guy” you are.