That is actually what he is trying extra hard to explain that he is _not_ asserting (if you go read the thing).

It's basically what he is spending the first few pages trying to be absolutely clear about. The overlapping normal distribution curves is a very immediate way to visualise it, but an excerpt will have to do:

"Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

He opens _and closes_ with:

> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

He even includes a chart to show the amount of overlap between the curves (high) and directly argues against applying traits towards individual behavior.

Let's phrase this another way if I state that if you are "black" (sub-Saharan African) in origin you have a higher likelyhood of Sickle-cell is that racist?

No. It is a _population_, _average_ difference.

Now the _science he cites_ (women are more prone to Neuroticism) is less well settled. That's something to disagree with.

But if its insulting to even have a discussion that the population of women, on average, show different traits then men what discussion _can be had_? Can we even talk about diseases that are more likely to affect women? What's okay?

Where in his manifesto did he say that?

I've read it through a few times, and nowhere does he say that.