There is absolutely no sourcing for research showing women being inherently or unfixably uninterested in computer science. None. He had a bunch of links to studies about bland stuff like personality differences, using them to make arguments the study authors never indended and (where asked) refused to support.
Calling that "sourcing" is essentially trying to treat Damore's fundamentally political document as an original piece of social science research.
> There is absolutely no sourcing for research showing women being inherently or unfixably uninterested in computer science.
Damore never made such claims. At the population level, it does indeed seem like women tend to be more interested in people-oriented subjects (nursing, pediatrics, law) and men tend to be more interested in thing-oriented subjects (engineering, compsci, surgery).
So even a discipline like medicine which has roughly gender parity, you still see segregation along gender lines, where women are overrepresented in subfields which deal directly with people (pediatrics, obgyn), and men are overrepresented in subfields which treat people as things (surgery). So a theory that delineates things vs. people has good explanatory power for explaining gender disparities [1].
Furthermore, Damore never claimed that such tendencies aren't "fixable". He claimed that the discriminatory policies currently in place are not only completely ineffective at influencing the gender numbers (and so should be ended), but that policies that take this research into account would be more effective.
> Calling that "sourcing" is essentially trying to treat Damore's fundamentally political document as an original piece of social science research.
If you're actually interested in a proper analysis Damore's claims by actual researchers in this field, I suggest reading [2].
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
There was a version initially floating around that had all the links removed.