He didn't say anywhere that women are biologically inferior. He stated the simple, inherent differences in what men and women tend to look for in careers to explain the overrepresentation of males in the company and in the tech industry in particular and suggested steps the company could take to attract more women instead of taking the discriminatory route of setting hiring quotas.
He's saying women are biologically unfit for certain positions in order to rationalize the low amount of women. He starts off meaning well, but refuses to build on it as it's apparently too idealistic to expand google's operations and create more people oriented roles. He's more or less just saying "maybe we could modify the existing jobs a little bit, but women still won't be the greatest fit, so I guess we'll all just have to live with such a small amount of women in IT."
Not to mention he immediately prides himself on being 'logical and facts-based' or whatever self-serving horse stuff he said, but somehow manages to misinterpret psychological studies and apply them in situations where they don't necessarily apply. For example, humans biologically don't like things constantly rubbing up against them, but nobody is using this as an argument against the social norm of wearing clothes. Except maybe nudists.
This is genuinely half-assed r/TumblrInAction pseudo-intellectual politics taken to the extreme and presented in a fancy "well-researched" PDF in a transparent attempt to gather credibility where he has none. Tech dudes should stop trying to apply their knowledge into psychological fields of knowledge they have not even begun to be trained in.
you can tell who is fake news by what versions of the memo you get shown. he cites everything with facts, and the news removed most the citations.
Linking to a Wikipedia page that is only relevant in subject matter is not a valid citation. You learn this in high school. For all intents and purposes, his claims are all unsourced.
