First I want to thank you for your well considered and detail response. It's a huge breath of fresh air and reason in a debate that often include people who are

First I want to thank you for your well considered and detail response. It's a huge breath of fresh air and reason in a debate that often include people who are quick to cry foul, jump to conclusions or condemn without stopping to think if they are succumbing to the fundamental attribution error. 1) Awesome. I'm happy your math experience was great. 2) That sucks. Fortunately access to a computer lab or the internet is sufficiently democratized that the unfortunate scenario you encountered shouldn't occur anymore. Having access to any computer and the internet today provides any child today orders of magnitude more privilege to learn and explore their passions than any kid growing up in the 80s, 90s and even 00s. I think there are still many communities that are still computing and internet poor, but we're getting closer and closer to the point where access to computing and the internet is inching closer to being considered a fundamental human right. At least now, it's only a minor socio-economic barrier and the height of that barrier is dropping rapidly, such that in the developed world, more and more people have access to a computing device and internet and the cost of acquiring a minimum viable general purpose computing device with a screen and keyboard can be had for less than $100. 3) From your description, it doesn't sound like many (or possibly any) of those boys were hackers (or became hackers). I think this is an important distinction to make that few people debating these issues do. If none of these boys were hackers, it sounds like you didn't really lose out socially from not being one of them. Hanging out with boys in the computer lab just to download porn sounds about as valuable as hanging out with a clique whose common bond is smoking weed. Not exactly a huge loss in the grand scheme of things. That said, it does sound like you lost out on access to the physical computing resources that would have allowed you to better partake in computing. Do you think this is a fair assessment in hindsight? This difference between hackers and bros is actually a point Meredith Patterson astutely pointed out in her "When Nerds Collide" essay. Historically, software engineering culture since the birth of the mini-computer has been "hacker culture". It's only in the past 10 years, perhaps as long as 20 that two distinctly new groups become not only part of the industry, but part of the engineers in the industry: Brogrammers and Geek Feminists. Hacker culture on the other hand was born at a time where many people rarely met IRL (or did so long after forming a common bond), where you had short ungendered handles, where the cost of transferring bytes of an image were sufficiently costly that you didn't have avatars and photos that let people know you weren't a dog. It was only in the late 90s to the mid 2000s that people became involved in the industry as a career and not out of natural nerd proclivities. The big change was money. Once Bill Gates made a ton of money and then Google became huge, did people start looking at tech as a way to become rich and a viable career. That's when the Brogrammers and Geek Feminists showed up. The inability of many in this debate to distinguish between male hackers and bros is a huge frustration of mine and is as exemplary of the fundamental attribution error as anyone making assumptions about computing ability based on gender. Out of curiosity, when were you in middle school? Middle school for me was 1992-1995. I'm particularly curious about dating when you'd be in school because it would help me get an idea of what you meant with some things you said like "a field with historical baggage", which is very very very different if you were in middle in the 80s, 90s or 00s. Lastly, one particular type of intersectionality I take interest in is neurological diversity. Not everyone has the same brain chemistry and responds the same way to different stimuli (from social situations to loud noises for example) and when they do respond, the range of ways people respond can be direct and unfiltered to shy and measured. One of the concerns I have with neurological intersectionality, is that there is a fundamental incompatibility between an environment that is accommodating and comfortable for the unfiltered and an environment that is accommodating of the sensitive. An environment that tolerates the unfiltered is uncomfortable for those that are sensitive and and environment that is comfortable for the sensitive somewhat necessitates rules, policing and admonishment for violation of behaviors that cause discomfort for those that are sensitive. As someone who identifies as being sensitive, I'm curious about your thoughts are for this dilemma. On a related note, I'm also curious about your thoughts on this somewhat old essay about tact filters: http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html Given my interest in neurological diversity and my belief that there is a fundamental incompatibility between environments that are safe, welcoming and comfortable for the unfiltered versus the sensitive, I think it's important that we, as an industry recognize that need for multiple environments that are supportive of the breadth of cognitive diversity of people that can contribute to our field. Awareness of this cognitive diversity and the creation of well labeled spaces at least creates environments (a) where the unfiltered can participate knowing they need to police themselves in that sensitive space and environments where they can participate and not worry about being sensitive or tactful, and (b) where the sensitive can participate knowing they need to be tolerant of unintentional insensitivity and lack of tact and environments, where they can participate with little risk of being offended, hurt or triggered.