Agree with Wisneuro. It's very reductive and oversimplistic. Anyone can argue anything and use articles and cherry-picked research to back up their claim. This author fails to cite research at all most of the time, though.
I tried to take this seriously on merits, but I find it to be a thinly-veiled argument for attacking "the left," tolerating institutionalized sexism, and ending diversity programming. Interesting that the author complains about confirmation bias of the left while citing some right-wing articles (this is one of his citations:
The Real War on Science) and right-wing blogs (
A Non-Feminist FAQ). The author falls prey to his own refutation points given that he is espousing an extreme view himself, although he tries to craft it as a non-extreme position. He also needs to cite some real research studies, because most of the citations are articles from magazines, books, blogs, or opinion pieces in scholarly journals.
I'm not understanding why the gender wage gap is a "myth" of the liberal left. Professionally, I have encountered sexism in my own work (finding out after the fact that a male colleague performing the same job was offered higher starting salary with with less education/experience than me and given a higher holiday bonus after less time with the company) and can personally refute the claim that for the same work, women are paid the same. Where are the research studies to show that my experience is rare and back up his claim (other than the book he cites)?
I agree that more discussion is a good step for everyone, because people can be highly polarized on both sides of an issue. But to dismiss the entire argument for institutional support to rectify systematic gender/race bias seems like a huge overstatement when we have a solid body of research to back up the existence of institutional bias, implicit bias, stereotype threat, etc. And further, to argue that we need less empathy to make decisions is rich, given that this author is unable to empathize with an entire group of people (the "left" as he refers to them) and is trying to justify it. The argument against empathy is very reductive and oversimplifying the issue.
More broadly, is it the responsibility of Google to make a small group of sexist/racist workers feel "psychologically safe" at the cost of the psychological safety of everyone else who doesn't feel safe if these workers make racist/sexist comments in the workplace? This is a hot topic currently, but it makes me wonder if Google should be held responsible for and punished for being choosy about their workforce in terms of workers' ideologies and values. Does Google have the right to choose a workforce with shared values and to fire those who don't espouse those values? Just food for thought.