Do you actually know what their applicant rate is per gender? How about how well said applicants fit the specified role? I always find it odd when people suggest that the ratio should be close to even when they likely know nothing about the field, the applicants, or even those that go into that field. As someone who works in that field, I can tell you that women aren't that common in the field or as applicants for jobs, but the ones that I do work with are generally quite good. Although, the one thing that I do know about them is that they're very assertive, which is counter to the points brought up by the Google employee. ...or rather, it shows that the women that I work with don't fall into the gender stereotype of women avoiding confrontation.
Now, since people love to read into posts waaaaay too much, I always toss in a disclaimer. Do I think sexism exists? Of course. I recall how one coworker told me that a higher up one time said that he didn't want to hire attractive women because he thought they'd be a distraction. My problem is that I think people tend to look at far too little data, and spin it to whatever their current narrative is, which is arguably counter-productive. STEM teaching should be a focus for all schools and work to get people of all genders and races introduced to the more mechanical and mathematical areas of science. It's a good set of fields with a lot of different types of work, but we can't assume that it will be a fit for everyone.