> Is this, in your opinion, appropriate analogy?
It’s an extreme analogy, for sure. I feel it’s necessary because there are not many things I can refer to that will intuitively make sense to a man with white skin as a scary, vulnerable situation. We can walk through dark alleys at night, don’t worry about being sexually assaulted when we go to tech meetups, etc. So I had to be a little extreme just to communicate the fear that other folks feel in their day-to-day lives as less privileged people.
> You managed to completely ignore the fact that the original memo had a very clear and bounded context
I disagree with the statement that it was bounded. As well as your later claim that he discussed things “scientifically”. The document covers suppression of conservative views, the constraints of the male gender role, the role of science in diversity work, female interest in engineering (without defining what engineering is so there’s no hope of ‘science’ at play here), and the male drive for status. It’s an enormous swath of different discussions and to pick any one of them to start with is to unconsciously communicate that the others are not worth talking about because they’re false or because they’re true. He really did a poor job with bounding the context.
> James did bring in a heavy scientific evidence
This is not true. He referenced a few ideas and some trends that we’ve discovered through science but he did not reference a single study. He also cherry-picked facts (e.g. “Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males”) that, as seen in disorders like CAH, are shown to have correlations not with sex or gender but testosterone.
I’m not against learning about what kinds of things men and women are interested in and how that manifests itself in tech. A good friend of mine studies this professionally. But unless we’re willing to participate at the level of actual researchers then we’re fooling ourselves that we’re using anything like “heavy scientific evidence”. We’re just quoting pop psych. And bad science is often more harmful than no science.
> treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group
That’s great unless those individuals all share or lack a privilege and we can see clear trends in their behavior as a group. In this case one white man acting as an individual in such a way that he inspires larger groups of white men to behave like him must be treated as a member of that group.
People who show up to engineering jobs as a non-male gender or non-white race don’t have the option of being treated as an individual when there are biases against their innate preferences or abilities to be doing their job.