Everything you said that's wrong with the interactions you have with male engineers, I'm not sure that James Damore would disagree with any of it, or claim that it doesn't happen, or say that we shouldn't be trying hard to change it.
What James argued is that the efforts Google is making and the way they are doing it are in some ways contributing to and making all of those bad experiences you listed worse.
James also argued that women are biologically inferior for STEM fields, which is objectively and demonstrably incorrect. With that, I think he'd disagree with absolutely all of it. He clearly has a confirmation bias, and is actively cherry picking articles (from fucking Wikipedia I might add) and misrepresenting their contents to make women seem inferior.
I keep hearing people say this but didn't read it in the memo.
Can you point to the bit where he says they are biologically inferior, or the sources he links to that say it?
The best I can come up with is the bit where he says Google lowers the bar by reducing the false-negative rate, meaning that a greater percentage of qualified men are rejected than qualified women.
[Edit] Reading through again to see more about biology claims in the memo, this is the one that sticks out the most:
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.
This sticks out because it mentions abilities - and is indeed the only place where ability is mentioned at all. The wording doesn't say that women are "biologically inferior for STEM fields", but I can see how it might be read that way. I don't read it that way, but I can understand how others might. The surrounding context is pretty much all about the preferences that people have as well, so "women are biologically inferior" doesn't seem like a point that is trying to be made at all.
I think it comes back to how you read this part of the TL;DR. "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."
Google currently has an 80M/20F split. Does that mean that very few women have the traits to work in CS at Google? If so, another way to phrase that might be "the large majority of women do not possess the innate biological traits necessary to work in CS at Google". From which it's not a far leap to "the large majority of women are biologically inferior for CS work at Google." Etc.
Normally, one might soften that by asking what population the distribution is drawn from. Sadly, the memo author makes it explicitly clear that he thinks it's largely due to biology: "Be open about the science of human nature. Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition
which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."
What James argued is that the efforts Google is making and the way they are doing it are in some ways contributing to and making all of those bad experiences you listed worse.