I am surprised that everyone focuses so strongly on gender bias in 
design and research and no one ever thinks about mentioning that 
socioeconomic class bias is much stronger. Social class bias 
overrides gender bias. Social class defines human thinking stronger 
than gender. This is a truism in social science. Of course, there are 
different visions.

I am concerned about politization of science. Introducing political 
agendas very often leads to manipulations that are used to obtain power.

I will give you a few examples from history.

-- "Workers" science in the Soviet Union. Luckily, this trend existed 
only about a decade before the Bolshies realized that it doesn't make 
sense. However, for several decades it was referred to with other, 
more subtle names. The overt goal of workers science was to empower 
workers and to show that the working class is superior to the 
capitalists. The covert goal was to control society with 
quasi-scientific doctrines.

-- "Arian" science in Nazi Germani. There were "scientific" attempts 
to justify Nazi ideology and the extermination of over 30 million 
people, not counting soldiers in combat. By the way, not many people 
would like to mention that Nazi stands for National Socialism. Again, 
under the cover of empowering German workers, many other workers were killed.

-- "Workers" science during the Cultural Revolution of Chairman Mao. 
Professors were treated like cattle on the fields and students were 
used as prison guards.

So, every time you believe that ideology will help you get empowered, 
think that someone else might use ideology to disempower you. Fusing 
science and ideology in human history has always ended with 
genocides. On the top of all, the ideological interventions always 
lead to deformations in science and preposterous claims.

I personally have not much desire to engage in this politicized 
discussion, but after my first voluntary intervention, I have to 
answer some preposterous implications about my position and my 
intentions. Some people misread my posts and the appeal for 
non-gendered, non-politicized science. Some people make a living from 
political action. I hope I would not be drawn more into the dispute.

However, the discussion is important from a standpoint of philosophy 
of science. It is legitimate on a scholarly discussion list. I just 
hope that we will focus more on the epistemological implications 
rather than on the harsh reality of office competition. Some people 
drink and golf their way to the top, others sleep their way to the 
top. Such strategies are actually heavily gendered. They rely on 
gender peculiarities and resources. I will agree with you.

Kind regards,

Lubomir

PS I have to apologize for changing the subject of the thread several 
days ago. It was an error. Just after I sent my mail, I noticed that 
someone has already started a similar thread.