Just because I can quote a 37 word paragraph of someone's speech doesn't mean that I accurately model the resolution of the map of the territory of that person.

Assuming that you can infer the full position of a person from a short exerpt is wrong. Twitter culture where people think that everything boils down to short exerpts is deeply troubling.

I agree. It was really just a pithy way of saying that he has a naive conception of this particular issue.

An important point: I have personally observed particular members of the old male guard in cell biology reliably applying much harsher standards to their female colleagues and students than to their male colleagues unreasonably and repetitively. (EDIT: it sure isn't everyone or even a plurality but it sure is a visible pattern)

This leads to women (being over half my field at the PhD level) leaving their associations with these men and staying the heck away, as anyone would when being criticized and judged unfairly.

Thankfully I can say this is becoming much less common as the field turns over, and there are more options and sane colleagues available now such that female scientists need to put up with unreasonable behavior or leave all together much less frequently these days.

What do you mean by this? Certainly it may be necessary to make the question more precise, but the question certainly talks about things that correspond to reality.

Let us taboo 'criticism'. Here's one definition: "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes." Surely the members of predominantly or entirely female social groups have some way of expressing disapproval and updating on it, as in all social groups; the problem is that it's different from the way that men do, and that when women find themselves in predominantly male professions, they're unfamiliar with the culture and misinterpret social signals that express disapproval by interpreting them in terms of the cultures to which they are accustomed. To speak of an innate Criticism-Taking Ability as the sole causal factor is a lossy compression that prevents you from imagining ways that you might improve the outcomes of situations in which criticism is exchanged. The question is then "How can we improve the outcomes of situations in which criticism is exchanged?"

In other words, she's arguing that most women won't be able to adept and that to be truly inclusive of women the culture would have to change.

She's arguing that the LW culture would probably be more amenable to altering itself for the sake of including women than most other cultures, not that women in the LW culture would be more amenable to altering themselves. It's true that women in the LW culture would probably be more amenable to altering themselves, but she wasn't arguing, and we can't say, that her example is strong evidence of how well an arbitrary woman will adapt to an arbitrary culture, or how well an arbitrary culture with a paucity of women will adapt to more women. At any rate, I only brought this comment up in my first comment in order to provide an example of the dissonance between male and female social norms for exchanging criticism, so this isn't really important.

It would also be suboptimal for said scout to spend too much time in white neighborhoods looking for seven-foot-tall white basketball players, and a precommitment to doing so would also be a lost purpose.

You're breaking the analogy. Random neighborhoods of people have not already been selected for height. (This is why talent scouts don't actually scout door-to-door. Beware when you find yourself arguing that a policy has some benefit compared to the null action, rather than the best benefit of any action.) If researchers are coming to you with résumés containing data relevant to their research ability, or if you're searching graduate programs for potential researchers, then IQ and research ability have already been selected for. You're using race and gender as proxies for height and IQ; you throw away proxies when you have the real deal. This is about excluding women a priori. It's simple: if you have a perfectly good female researcher in front of you, and you don't hire her because you have a sign that says "No girls allowed," then your sign is stupid.