>Do you realize how subjective this is and how impossible it is to prove that today there are no other influences at play than biology

He never claims there are no other influences at play -

From the memo; note the works "in part" and "may explain" - 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.

> And that we've maxed on the number of woman in this field and we're now at an equilibrium determined by biology?

There is no such claim of this whatsoever. Your comment is a great example of the problems with this debate.

First of all, the original memo said nothing of the sort.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure GP is not saying the reaction to this memo is anti-science merely because it opposes the position taken in the memo. Rather, it's anti-science because they threw all rational debate out the window and fired the guy without even trying to address the points he made.