There are disagreeable ideas that nobody has anxiety over though, so it's not just that.

But I think you can see that too. If you assume his ideas are correct:

1. His letter becomes well received, my employer changes their hiring policies

2. The current gender ratio was propped by non-gender-neutral hiring practices, without them, that will change back in-line to the base rate

3. My job is in danger

Is anxiety over losing one's job justified?

Or, another line:

1. His letter is well received, but my employer doesn't change their hiring policies

2. My co-workers now think that I have my job not because I earned it but because of the non-gender-neutral hiring practices

3. My job is in danger

I can produce more, but at the end of the day they all threaten either status or jobs, so I don't fault why people would defend their interests with all their effort.

Yes, but both result in a failure to manage one's emotions. The implication I think you're making is that if others are insulting you, you should control your emotions, if others are physically threatening you, it's understandable if you fear for your life. But the biological reality is that both produce amygdala responses and strong emotions.

Also, calling it "citing peer-reviewed research" is sort of missing the point. How about "politely and scientifically insinuating that some of my co-workers wouldn't be working here if it weren't for social programs at the company" which can be taken for insult. The validity of the research is besides the point.

So no, Damore is not responsible for people not "managing their emotions", he's responsible for not forseeing that people would not "manage their emotions". As in, he should have known better than to insult people at work.

Going back to guns, some people like to make demonstrations where they open cary in a Starbucks. They mean no harm, they're within the bounds of the law... but they're either counting on people to freak out to create media commotion or they're obtuse.