Scott Alexander argues that gender imbalances in certain movements are more likely due to inherent differences in interests between men and women rather than offensive attitudes, challenging the assumption that purging perceived sexism will achieve gender parity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander challenges the assumption that gender imbalances in movements like libertarianism are primarily due to offensive attitudes. He presents examples of groups with poor gender equality reputations that still have balanced gender ratios, such as Trump voters and the Catholic Church. He then explores research on gender differences in interests, particularly the 'interest in things vs. people' dimension, which shows a large difference between men and women. Scott suggests these underlying differences in interests and approaches to morality (e.g., utilitarianism) may better explain gender imbalances in certain fields and movements. He argues that attempts to achieve gender balance by purging perceived sexism may be misguided and could lead to unnecessary conflict within these communities. The post concludes by emphasizing the need to fight harassment and build a better world, but not with the expectation that it will automatically lead to gender parity in all fields. Shorter summary

Scott debunks viral misinformation about false rape accusation rates and provides more accurate estimates, while criticizing the spread of such inaccuracies in feminist circles. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a viral Buzzfeed article that claims false rape accusations are extremely rare, showing how the article's statistics are severely flawed. He provides a more accurate analysis of false rape accusation rates, estimating they affect between 0.3% to 3% of men in their lifetimes. Scott expresses frustration at how readily such misinformation spreads in feminist circles and urges readers to be extremely skeptical of statistics from these sources. He concludes by discussing the difficulty of dealing with rape accusations given the significant rates of both rape and false accusations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay about trigger warnings in rationalist spaces, arguing that the community's purpose is dispassionate discussion and that everyone, not just marginalized groups, has triggers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to an essay by Apophemi about trigger warnings and discourse in the rationalist community. He argues that the rationalist community is already a 'safe space' for people who want to discuss ideas dispassionately, and that trying to make it safe for everyone would fundamentally change its nature. He shares his own experiences of being triggered by social justice rhetoric, and suggests that everyone has triggers, not just marginalized groups. Scott also discusses issues around language use, slurs, and political correctness, arguing that context and intent matter when determining what language is harmful. Shorter summary