It's not equality of results, it's equality of opportunity.
You can get the same initial chance to prove your ability at basketball as he did. You can even get a slight boost to compensate for things (maybe he was a lot more motivated, or maybe he got some practice in the 'hood). And it'll turn out you have no skills/talent/ability, you're not 2 meters high, and so on.
Now, with sports, it's not a problem if we don't spend more than a few seconds of thought on trying to create equal opportunities, because with competitive sports the point is exactly to not have equal outcomes.
But with broad categories like jobs/career, income, wealth, political/legal/professional representation, we pretty much want to make sure that if one gender is underrepresented then it's not hurting us all on the long run. It might turn out that yeah, women don't really like tech, and those few who do are very welcome, men can behave around them, and those instances of sexism are just the expected rare problems that do happen in every other walks of life. But so far, it seems that it's very much not the case.
But people aren't clones and we aren't all equal. Hey, I want to be equal to LeBron James. Please, give me the same salary.
You want equality, there's communism for you. See how that panned out.
> women are innately unsuited to computers
Did you read the original paper? Damore never wrote that. He was talking about statistical chance, not generalizing like you are now.