This was a disappointing column.  There are all sorts of legitimate grounds under which to challenge "Google guy's" manifesto.

So there was no need for this column to misrepresent his argument to do so.

As the column by  Soh showed, there is some scientific merit to one of his key assertions with respect to biology.

The places the manifesto should be attacked are:

1) In looking for any evidence that Google attempts to balance gender have led to any sort of reverse discrimination in either tech or management.     ie: that there is a problem worth ranting about.

2) The denial of any sort of non-biological factor in the wage gap.

3) The complete ignorance of the level sexism and harassment of women in tech in the industry at large.   In other words, even if there will always be fewer women in tech, it is still worthwhile for companies like Google to try and ensure those who are there feel welcome and are treated fairly.