To clarify, I don't object to the claim that people have wrongly used the "gender/race/etc card" when it isn't warranted. Of course this is disgusting. I take issue with the idea that, for example, if Obama were to play the race card, that this somehow represents an attack on "whiteness". This is ridiculous.
> This line of attack is not a "reminder" it is an evasion of debate, and an attempt to reject intellectual discourse for ad hominem.
I never meant to imply that. I meant that the reminder that you are privileged, isn't an attack as such. I could have phrased it better, I admit.
> It also shows that many people think that simply because of someone's skin color, gender or sexual orientation is not that of a "minority" that their opinions are groundless and based in ignorance.
> All these security issues are irrelevant because a white presumably straight guy brought them up? Really?
I agree that this is bad. But on the other hand, wouldn't one necessarily need to have these marginalized traits (skin color, gender or sexual orientation) to fully understand discrimination? You can read all you want about discrimination but unless you have actually experienced it, I don't think you'll be able to say anything new or compelling on the matter. That's what everyone wants, really; a good story.
Corny metaphor incoming: It would be like a director who has studied about 1920's history for years, having never experienced it, and a director having breathed and lived it. Who would you prefer to direct a movie, all other things being equal, about the 20's?
An aside: It's the same reason why people attack Romney's life of wealth. "How could someone so rich know how the average person feels?", goes the argument. That's a legitimate concern in my book.
> I don't see how cryptography is intrinsically racial, sexist or related to sexual orientation at all.
In itself cryptography, and by extension, mathematics, has absolutely nothing to do with gender politics or any kind of politics at all. Number theory is number theory is number theory. Yes. But it is in the CONTEXT of the larger social, cultural, political even economical factors, in which all of us live and most of us agree are important, that cryptography is made political. Why should I put on my blinders and ignore all of these issues just because the connection seems vague? (It isn't.) Here's the truth of the matter: everything is political to some extent, and there's nothing wrong with pointing this out.
I really like this quote:
"To claim to be apolitical is a contradiction. Every public stance is a political stance: all social acts can influence others, however subtly or imperceptibly. A political absolute zero is unattainable; just as all matter at a finite temperature radiates heat, all social acts radiate politics. In truth, to be "apolitical" is to be politically white-hot, to shine brightly in the colours of the status quo." -- Stephen Bond
But then again, nobody is saying that cryptography is inherently anti-woman, it's the culture that's under scrutiny.
> It seems those who engage in it feel privileged as if the rules of discourse don't apply to them and they can win by "playing the race/gender/etc. card".
I don't live in the US but I feel like this is an exaggeration. I agree that this behavior is disgusting, but the solution is to shame the individuals who engage in this behavior, not dismiss or whitewash the fundamental concerns.