Eh, I think that a lot of this is being blown quite a bit out of proportion, and I think that the original "manifesto" and this article actually compliment each other's points better than they contradict. Before we get started, I recommend that you read the manifesto, if you haven't already.
I should also perhaps include a caveat that I'm a white man born in the Appalachians and raised in Florida. I can be quite conservative in some of my views. I can also be quite liberal in others. I voted for Bernie and see myself as a Progressive/Socialist on most economic issues, but for social issues I am a conservative who thinks that both parties and our media have corrupted the modern interpretation of conservative social policies into making things far too "black and white". I'm new here after lurking a bit. I hope that we can get along and have a productive discussion.
This particular manifesto may not be the best-written or best-argued illustration of the problems, but it's the one that has sparked the discussion. From my reading of the document in question, the most significant point made is the one illustrated in this figure: .
Yes, the author then goes on to focus only on the differences in the averages of male and female personalities. He does this to claim that certain resources within google that are only provided to women to help manage stress should be provided to both men and women. He also argues that similar resources to help minority ethnicities should be available to white people. As the author of the linked article asserts, one of the most important aspects of engineering are figuring out the complex social structure behind the project being developed. When some ethnicities are provided extra tools to understanding these structures, that gives them an unfair advantage. Rather than having programs for certain minorities in gender or ethnicity, there should be programs introducing the structure of the company to all new hires.
The author of this "manifesto" does not always make his points very clearly, and he does make some points counterproductive to (what I see as) his primary thesis. Everyone needs to learn that saying something inflammatory might feel good, but rarely does good. He feels ostracized and angry, and that predisposed him to say (and believe) some of these things. But as someone with more conservative social views, I still agree with the major point: if you provide a service to help new people adjust to the culture of a company, you have to provide it to everyone. Some women might not need advice in handling stress, and some men might: why restrict this resource to women only?
Whether you're a black woman from an inner city, or a white man from Appalachia, you are likely to feel a culture shock when trying to interact with the peoples and culture of Silicon Valley. Both of these archetypes, and indeed everyone, should have access to tools that aid in understanding the culture and social structures that exist at such a massive "planet-scale" company (or society!). The white man from Appalachia shouldn't be disadvantaged just because "most" white people that go to work there didn't have a culture shock to deal with.
I may not know much about the author of the original document in question, but I understand how he feels to be ignored, and to have everyone assume that he must be able to fit in just fine with the current world order just because he's a white male. Rather than take his complaints seriously, he was fired and is being called a sexist. If such an attitude continues then the heartland of our country will continue to struggle to adapt to this changing, global world, and it will turn to anyone who pays them any attention (see Trump).
Our current culture of political correctness is broken because it tries to help mushy, ill-defined groups of people that don't have solid boundaries rather than just anyone who needs help. It is inherently racist. To make true progress we must replace it. Right now, many of my friends and neighbors would like that replacement to act as a sort of revenge that returns to them undue advantage, because that's the only type of replacement that's being offered to them. We must come together and understand each other to fix our social ills. We must do this in a way that does not focus on race, but instead on the basis of the needs of individuals.
P.S. The author also makes some claims that do not fit in with his major thesis, but instead dance around a similar theme (e.g. de-emphasize empathy, prioritize intention, etc). I have neglected to tackle them in this already-long answer. If you would like me to follow-up, feel free to ask about any of the points that I neglected here. I am also interested in hearing how any of you might disagree with any of my analysis.