If I understand correctly, the purpose of the self-censorship was to make this site more friendly for women. Which creates a paradox: An idea that one can speak openly with men, but with women a self-censorship is necessary, is kind of offensive to women, isn't it?

(The first rule of Political Correctness is: You don't talk about Political Correctness. The second rule: You don't talk about Political Correctness. The third rule: When someone says stop, or expresses outrage, the discussion about given topic is over.)

Or maybe this is too much of a generalization. What other topics are we self-censoring, besides sexual behavior and politics? I don't remember. Maybe it is just politics being self-censored; sexual behavior being a sensitive political topic. Problem is, any topic can become political, if for whatever reasons "Greens" decide to identify with a position X, and "Blues" with a position non-X.

We are taking the taboo on political topics too far. Instead of avoiding mindkilling, we avoid the topics completely.

Although we have traditional exceptions: it is allowed to talk about evolution and atheism, despite the fact that some people might consider these topics political too, and might feel offended. (Global warming is probably also acceptable, just less attractive for nerds.) So let's find out what exactly determines when a potentially political topic becomes allowed on LW, or becomes self-censored?

My hypothesis is that LW is actually not politically neutral, but some political opinion P is implicitly present here as a bias. Opinions which are rational and compatible with P, can be expressed freely. Opinions which are irrational and incompatible with P, can be used as examples of irrationality (religion being the best example). Opinions which are rational but incompatible with P, are self-censored. Opinions which are irrational but compatible with P are also never mentioned (because we are rational enough to recognize they can't be defended).