[Nadya]

I'd like to take the time to thank you for answering in good faith - rather than assuming I had asked in bad faith. So, thank you.

Unfortunately I'm not able, in good faith, to take a stand for or against your argument. Consider this conceding the argument, but not being entirely convinced (allow me to explain).

Initially, I would like to reject it. Because as a libertarian-leaning trans, I fall under both examples you cited. Concern over potential abuse of PII, government overreach, and sexual identity (the concern over gender identity is similar in that regards). But I also fall under the "white, male" label.

However, I do understand the argument that a more targeted individual may be more capable of identifying potential issues. I feel this is contextual and often results in too many "maybes", "potentials", and "possibilities" to be entirely convincing.

"They maybe might have the potential to maybe see a possibility for something that might have the potential to maybe have the possibility of being abused." is not something I find convincing. Though it is technically correct and I have to concede that.

[Lawtonfogle]

The key thing is that I'm on neither side of the debate. I see merits to both sides and look for a way to work out both. Also, I like to work on arguments for any side even if I don't agree with that side (I have sometimes devil advocated for positions just because no one else would touch them).

Personally, at the current time, I see too many problems with quotas for them to be useful. Namely is the perception problem, where people (including the one hired) will think that their race/gender/etc. had more to do with them getting hired than their skill, causing all sorts of problems. At the same time, I do see merit in fighting against known biases and issues that push out minorities.

I dislike both the over PC nature that leads to Donglegate and the bro-culture that leads to common inappropriate comments and behavior.

[Nadya]

So you're essentially where I stand then. :P

I consider myself the "Milo" of transexuals and have a large disconnect with most people who consider themselves part of the "LGBT Movement". Many of which are right up there with PC culture (e.g telling me I can't use the word "tranny", even when referring to myself? Fuck off.)

While I do see the problem and in many places agree - I do not agree with the proposed methods of solving it. That especially includes "quotas" - unofficial or official. Nobody wants to be the "token black guy" (even if there are "40 token black guys") just to improve a diversity number. Which unfortunately is how many tech companies seem to be trying to resolve the "wow that company isn't diverse" criticisms being flung at them.

"If I weren't homosexual, I'd be the largest homophobe." - Milo Yiannopoulos

[incrediblebob]

Please keep in mind, Milo's writing is tongue in cheek. It's generally agreed upon that Milo's writing is parody (ref: https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=twosc... ) . He's parodying Men's rights activists. He is like the Onion but harder to distinguish.

[Nadya]

That was him during an interview, not writing. Furthermore it's important to distinguish his satire from his viewpoints.

Of course the comment is a tad tongue-in-cheek. It is speaking more that he is against much of the LGBT movement in which he should be a part of. Falling under the "G" and by not conforming to the widely held beliefs he is homophobic. I fall under the "T" but I'm disgusted with half of what the LGBT movement pushes for and have on many occasions been called a transphobe. Especially in regards to my usage of "tranny", as I stated.

A bit tongue-in-cheek myself: If I weren't a transexual I'd be one of the largest transphobes I know. Largely because I refuse to let people police my speech.