It's kind of odd to dismiss the people who made the decision to fire him as having been "triggered", though. They were probably men, after all.
That's totally on me, sloppy wording.
Probably shouldn't go writing any manifestos at this rate.
Do struggle to see how he could have presented the viewpoint much better though, which is why I wonder why he even bothered in the first place if this is the reaction it got (despite the fact this was initially posted on a closed forum designated specifically for controversial viewpoints before it was leaked to a wider audience).
Just for fun, took the time to read some of the scientific papers he cited, and he seems to be guilty of over-interpreting data, IMO. One of those things where you take a study, and apply the results in a different context and make an assumption about how it'd play out. Even if the assumption seems to be common sense, that can be deceiving, and there's no specific evidence for what you're arguing (in this case for example, citing the study about men being drawn to pursue power, and using that as justification for an under-representation of women in tech). Given the degree to which that happens in science (i.e. everyone basically trying to pretend their data is more awesome than it really is because that can lead to more funding), I'd argue he's more guilty of over-interpreting data to fit his own political beliefs than anything actively malicious, but I'm not his employer either. Internal politics are a *****.