My first answer was response to Kitsune's question, this answer is response to the answer by @nick012000 as it would not fit in comment section.
I wont address all the points you raised but some here are responses to some:
I believe that this was a clear abuse of SE moderator powers to silence your political opponents. Another mod said that it received five "rude and abusive" flags, but all that means is that five people wanted to censor wrongthink and that they realized that that was the best way to do so.
You seem to have misunderstanding of what Economics is. Economics is science, and there is no place for political opinions when discussing scientific matters. This is especially true for positive economics, which was both subject matter of the question, and which is also economics that deals with empirical matters.
Next, as our help center makes crystal clear, questions by extension answers should asked/answered based on/using facts, studies, economic theory and reasoning - not moral/political/religious/philosophical values.
Previously, I just thought that your answer is a nonexpert attempt at trying to explain the empirical literature behind gender wage gap. If you now say that it was intended to make political point then it without any doubt does not belong on Economics.SE.
For political questions/answers there is Politics.SE and for moral questions answers there is Philosphy.SE.
If I got a group of five friends to go around raising "rude and abusive" flags on all answers that promote Marxist economics, Austrian trickle-down economics, or [insert politically-charged economic theory here] to censor people I disapprove of for political reasons, would that be acceptable as well?
This actually excellently shows the misunderstanding about economics you seem to have here.
There is no economic theory called "trickle-down" economics, the same way as there is no economic theory called "soak the rich" (see more detailed explanation by Mankiw).
"Trickle down" is a pejorative used by left, and "soak the rich" is pejorative used by right but they are not economic theories. They are strawmen of different economic theories on macroeconomics, optimal taxations etc (or even worse, they are strawmen of layman understanding of these theories - they are strawmen of strawmen). If you see these pejoratives used on this site you should flag them, moderator team will definitely have a look!
This does not mean that heterodox economic theories are not welcome. You should feel free to post answers based on actual Marxian or Austrian economics or any other heterodox field.
For example (acceptable topics):
Austrian theory of business cycle or economic development that based on some theory/models shows light taxation and non-intervention is optimal is completely on topic
Marxian theory of business cycle or Marxian theories of economic development also completely on topic
- Saying "taxes are evil" or "private property is evil" etc is not on topic on this site.
As a matter of fact when it comes to economics it completely possible for a person to be strict adherent to the heterodox Austrian school of economics but be politically left wing and advocate for high taxes, high level of redistribution etc. regardless of what Austrian economic theory says would be efficient, as it is completely possible for strict adherent to Marxian school of economics to politically support minimum taxes on rich, lowering deficit and so on regardless of what Marxist theory implies is efficient.
Yes many economics topics are sadly politicized in real world, but that does not mean politics belongs into the economics, and at Economics.SE we kindly ask users (through our help center) to check their political/moral/religious/philosophical values at the entry. We do not disparage your personal political/moral/religious/philosophical values but there is place and time for everything and Economics.SE is not place for these.
Furthermore, I do believe that I did take into account all suggestions that were made to me by the moderator team;
No, you got 2 suggestions:
To use on average to avoid generalizations since even if research shows that lets say women have on average smaller lung capacity than men there are women who have higher lung capacity than some men.
You were cautioned against use of strong value-laden language like "inferior". You were literary warned that; "Using strong value laden language like "inferior" and implicitly assuming all women have inferior negotiation skills sounds quite strong and might offend some".
When discussing any topic but especially when discussing controversial topics it is always better to use less strong words.
For example, suppose you want to refer to literature showing women tend to have less muscle mass than men. Here are some examples how you can approach this topic:
Non-problematic: "Miller et al (1993) show that in experiments that women are only approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men, on average, in the upper and lower body respectively."
Fine: "Studies show that women tend to have on average lower strength than men (see here)."
Problematic/Borderline Offensive/Offensive "Women are inferior in body strength to males".
Unacceptable/Clearly Very Offensive: "Women are inferior".
How you say things matter. The stack exchange explicitly asks you in the code of conduct be inclusive and respectful. and:
We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't use language that might offend or alienate.
The line between bigotry and making factual claims can often be thin. Humans are sexually dimorphic species so there are bound to be differences between the sexes in various aspects. You can of course reference those differences where relevant, but you should do that using appropriate language.
The difference between using appropriate and inappropriate language can be very thin and hard to see especially for non-native speaker. There is always subjective element involved. It is always best to try to err on the side of caution. If mod teams contacts you in these matters try to take into account all suggestions. Also, different moderators might be more/les sensitive to these issues. If you want to avoid these issues always err on the side of politeness. If you, purposefully or unwittingly, walk on the precipice you risk falling over.
Finally, you claimed that I was being sexist by ignoring "decades of economic research". I was not. The research is on my side: there is no pay gap, or if there is, it is too small to properly measure.
So which is it? Science is not a la carte. Is there no pay gap or is it too small? The Forbs article you linked to explicitly states:
When comparing two people in the same profession, with the same seniority, working the same number of hours, and so forth, women earn \$0.98 for every dollar that a man earns.
This is reasonable and in line with what most research shows, the gender pay gap for same professions and backgrounds differs by countries and places and it is just about 0.8-5%, but it does not show that there is no pay gap, or that it is 'hard to measure'.
When discussing this with layman maybe sweeping statements like "gender pay is myth" would be fine, but don't be surprised if on Economics.SE Q&A for those who study, teach, research and apply economics and econometrics such statements will ruffle some fetters.
If you would post on Astronomy.SE, Earth and Venus are almost same size so there is no difference in gravity between the two, you would likely not make many friends even if Venus's gravity is more than 90% of the Earths one and for laymen discussion saying they are the same would be fine.
Note even ignoring 5 rude or abusive flags, your post got several low quality or fill in comment complaining about low quality as well. Some of those flags were from new users and might be just due to anger/emotional response to your question, but there were few also from high reputation users. Even though in past we did not outright deleted low quality answers (which is actually common on many science stacks) we were considering to start doing that for some time now and your post happened to be the proverbial last straw.
As mentioned in my other answer, I was advocating for not deleting the answer like this, but this has far less to do with people disliking your politics rather than us catching with other science stacks in terms of moderation of content quality.
Lastly, even though the post was deleted you were not issued suspension. You can post new answer/edit your old one. I can't speak for Kitsune but it is possible that if he sees improvement he will reverse his decision. But you should remember to follow code of conduct and guidelines set in help center. You can also take inspiration from answers of high rep users such as Alecos Papadopoulos or other high rep users to see what sort of answers we encourage on this site.
Even if you are non-economist you are welcome to participate here, but if you are not up to date on literature try to avoid very strong statements. It is very easy to experience the Dunning–Kruger effect if you just casually read blogs on some topic, so it is always best to go for softer tone if you are not expert on certain topic. As mentioned above it is likely that going forward we will do more moderation regarding the quality of answers, if you want to be safe use sources from peer reviewed literature directly or technical books/handbooks/textbooks. Make sure source you cite actually support the claims you make in your answer.