You are losing this argument because you aren't being consistent with yourself.
Originally you said, "using these differences to conclude that women are biologically less inclined to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning"
So you were talking about inclination and interest. You then claimed the facts were on your side, that it was offensive to claim otherwise, and the existence of anyone who doesn't already agree is "unfortunate".
After chongli pointed out that you're wrong about the facts, you have moved the goalposts. Now you're pretending you said "biologically ill-suited". This is not true. You said "less inclined".
As the memo in question didn't claim women are biologically ill-suited to be software engineers, only less inclined, your original statement was contradicted by science and your second try is not what anyone tried to argue.
Nobody argued with the obvious fact that people expressed outrage and took offense at the memo. The argument started with your baseless claim that "women are biologically less inclined to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning that is not at all supported by the facts."
Originally you said, "using these differences to conclude that women are biologically less inclined to engineering is a gross leap in reasoning"
So you were talking about inclination and interest. You then claimed the facts were on your side, that it was offensive to claim otherwise, and the existence of anyone who doesn't already agree is "unfortunate".
After chongli pointed out that you're wrong about the facts, you have moved the goalposts. Now you're pretending you said "biologically ill-suited". This is not true. You said "less inclined".
As the memo in question didn't claim women are biologically ill-suited to be software engineers, only less inclined, your original statement was contradicted by science and your second try is not what anyone tried to argue.