"Simply put, even the world’s most pro-woman, sex-positive, pro-consent talk about sex is likely to have negative effects on women at a technical conference."
This seems like an incredibly accurate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly consequentialist view of the situation. It's supported by an overwhelming majority of objective evidence[2][3][4][5][6].
It is already being attacked as "against hacker culture," because apparently "hacker culture" is synonymous with "propagate any and all information regardless of the social consequences." Sharing information openly and freely is generally a good thing, because it generally leads to good results. But that's no reason to continue to senselessly spread information that will almost certainly lead to bad things.
To head off the inevitable argument about "censorship" and "freedom of speech," I'll note that nobody here was censored, nor denied freedom of speech. One group used their freedom of speech to convince another group hosting a conference to exercise its freedom of speech and not endorse a talk they were apparently convinced was harmful. Freedom of speech doesn't permit you the use of any platform as your own. My freedom of speech doesn't entitle me to writing the Washington Post's front page headline (or getting any space in the paper at all).
It looks like the organizers were right not to allow this talk to be given at their conference, and I for one applaud them for that, even though they'll inevitably be subject to backlash.
[1] http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/keeping-it-on-topic-the-pro...
[2] http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/30/1/59.short
[3] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-006-9140-x....
[4] That swimsuit becomes you: sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of personality and social psychology [0022-3514] Fredrickson yr:1998 vol:75 iss:1 pg:269
[5] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ASERS.00000323....