The most charitable interpretation of the "men are genetically better at 'systems,' women are genetically better at 'people'" line of argument is that women who go into "systems-related" fields should be treated as exceptions to that rule unless proven otherwise, by them, to the satisfaction of their male peers. This, in itself, is sexist gatekeeping. To say nothing of the fact that this is built upon on a pretty shoddy interpretation of the underlying research, and to say nothing of the fact that this is built upon a pretty shoddy interpretation of the characterological prerequisites for success in corporate engineering.
There's a reason why the "Just Asking Questions" line of defense for assertions made through specious reasoning is commonly abbreviated as "JAQing Off." Such rhetorical masturbation is designed to cloak an agenda, with real implications for real people, as some innocuous abstraction that no one should ever feel the need to get huffy about. It's like when Sam Harris protests "Hey I just want to talk about ideas" after arguing for religious profiling at border crossings and airports. He's not "just talking about ideas," he's talking about policy that guides a specific set of actions.
As I said, this isn't some anodyne discussion of biology; this is a political manifesto, laying out political demands that ought to be met by the institution in question (Google) that would have material implications on the people who work there; specifically, that demand can be summarized as "stop committing so many resources to recruiting women, because <BIOTRUTHS> show that its probably wasted, and commit more resources toward recruiting people of my own ideological cohort." The rationale proceeds from that demand - it is the cart pulled by the horse - and not the other way around.