Dennis, how about this as a framework:
1) We encourage discussion.
2) Idle speculation (e.g. you and I talking discussing fields we don’t actually understand but find fascinating) must take into account the feelings of the audience (and limit the discussion or the audience as is appropriate).
3) Actual problem solving (e.g. finding out whether innate gender-based attributes influence Google’s diversity programming) must be done in a methodical way where the method is visible and open to criticism and must take into account the effects that that problem solving will have on all of the stakeholders.
Regarding #3: not everybody’s desires can be met but I’d be happy if someone applied a process that’s reasonably thorough and came up with a conclusion that my needs are important but, in this particular case, not as important as somebody else’s. That’s something I could live with.
What do you think? I’m sure this can be massively improved.