Not adding those statements also has a cost.

This is trivially true. What does adding them add to a conversation to which they are not relevant or significant?

Honestly, you don't know how many potential rationalists may find a post seemingly making unchallenged sweeping generalizations about women, and decide that these so-called rationalists are just a group of bigoted idiots that are less rational than your average person-in-the-street.

This is uncontestably true. But the opposite is also true; you don't know how many potential rationalists may find a post filled with provisos and details and, upon discovering a massive gulf of an inferential gap, give up on even attempting to understand.

[Re: Pi "is" 3.14] In short if there's actual transparency, not a double illusion of such.

Certainly.

But if they don't know that, if every post of yours may be perceived as an indication of complete positions (not hasty approximations thereof)

This is a gross misrepresentation of my statements, to the point of being nothing remotely like what I advocate. I have repeatedly advocated not the elimination of precision but the application of only the relevant degree of precision to the nature of the discourse at hand.

it costs less to do things like say "most women" instead of "women" (or add a general disclaimer at the beginning) rather than not do it.

My point is not restricted to '''"most women" instead of "women"'''. It is a generalized principle which happens to apply here. For any given conversation there are thousands of such details we must choose to parse for relevance to a conversation. Demanding unerring accuracy beyond relevance is simply damaging to dialogue.