That people understand that there are real, biological differences between men and women. This simple, science based "position" (a plain fact) itself gets people called sexist. That discussions on the topic should be met with intelligent debate of the points rather than character attacks or questioning of motivation. I've not seen a criticism of any of James' actual points which itself is a huge problem.

That biological differences explain at least a decent part, and probably a lot, of gender disparities in different fields of work. Trying to force different groups of people to have the same representation in all fields regardless of things like background and interests will cause things to be worse for both groups (in this case men and women). This is because men will be less able to do the job they actually want and women being pressured into doing a job they don't actually want. That comes in the form of affirmative action and other subsidy programs. IE: Beth decides on computer engineering as her major not because she actually wants to do it as much as education, but because she was given an extra large scholarship specifically only for that. As a result of that decision, now Joe didn't get that slot even though it was his real passion. Both Beth and Joe are worse off here in my mind. The same is true for general hiring practices.

I'd reevaluate the idea that affirmative action "lowers sexism" by the way. Sexist behavior at google doesn't suddenly go down because 5% more women were forced into the job when they weren't actually as qualified as men that interviewed better or had better credentials. I'd argue the opposite will be the case where now sexism will increase or manifest in ways it didn't before where because the hiring standards are lower for women than men, both men and women at the company over time will know that means they should probably rather get the guy on their team instead of the girl on average because he is actually going to be more qualified on average.

Essentially, the cost of trying to ignore biology is massive. You're fitting a square peg through a round hole and there is damage. I am not even sure what the supposed benefit is supposed to be.

Lastly, James' proposed policies probably wouldn't actually do much. I agree with that. But the idea is definitely going in the right direction and should somehow be applied earlier on. For example, in a high school / university computer science course teachers could do things like more group projects or assign difference pieces of a large project to different students and make programming a more social endeavor. When I took programming courses in university is was an extremely lonely field of study. If the thesis that women prefer social jobs more than men is true (I think it is and the science seems to agree) then this could ultimately lead to more women obtaining CS degrees. I could also see how this would make a team of people more productive overall when they ultimately start working at companies like google, where this early training to work as a team would actually be beneficial. That is a lot more convincing of a way to get more women into CS rather than to simply lower the hiring standards.