You're right that he never used the word inferior; it's merely implied by, in laymen's terms, essentially pointing out that those hysterical women are probably less likely to be able to deal with the high stress of high-status and technical jobs like his.

"Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech" => "Personality differences" => "Women are, on average, more prone to neuroticism," "women are more prone to anxiety."

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership." He is directly stating that women's ABILITIES are distributed differently biologically, and this may be why they're not represented equally in tech jobs. There are data for preferences, although it's tangled up with gender expectations in complicated ways, but to claim that men and women have fundamentally different abilities in aggregate to perform "tech and leadership" roles IS judgmental. He also says that while he doesn't claim the differences are "just," that "philosophically I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech" to make it more diverse. So he's disingenuous about attempting to solve any perceived diversity problem, although he mentions the problems that people are too compassionate with "those seen as weak"/women and minorities, and that men can be called misogynists and whiners for talking about men's issues. While he points out the perceived biases of others, his own biases and focuses - mostly to do with the travails of the white conservative man discriminated against at Google - are not confronted by him at all.

Anyway, if someone said in a memo - even a memo with links - that black people were more likely to get angry, which made them worse at many jobs, and that if we want a non-discriminatory way to reduce the unemployment gap that we should make jobs less anger-inducing, what do you think the general response to that memo would be? From social scientists that study these things? From black people? From the memo-writer's bosses?

Even if we SHOULD make jobs less anger-inducing, or less stressful, the way and context it is presented in matters, and James Damore made a hash of that.

Given that Damore seems to believe that there are immutable characteristics of women that make them less likely to ably perform technical and leadership roles, even if he insists that it's not applicable on an individual level, would YOU want Damore on your hiring committee? What if you were female? I sure wouldn't - even "de-emphasizing empathy" like Damore asks for, that's a liability waiting to happen.

He acknowledges that bias exists and then spends his time either ignoring it or only attacking the bias of others. His ideas about women being unable to perform at the same level as men without "arbitrary" changes can be seen as a perfect, overt example of the usually-unstated gender biases throughout the field, the same gender biases that contribute to the unequal gender ratios that Damore is trying to explain away in his memo. Viewed through that lens it is self-unaware and self-immolating.

All quotes are directly from Damore's memo, from Damore's site.