No? Tell a bunch of men that men are more likely to end up in prison because they're more likely to break the law and you won't see much disagreement, let alone

No? Tell a bunch of men that men are more likely to end up in prison because they're more likely to break the law and you won't see much disagreement, let alone offence taking. Well functioning societies define politeness very narrowly. It's about please and thankyou, not yelling, and other mechanical aspects unrelated to the content. The definition you're using here leads to forum outcomes like not being able to discuss workout techniques because that might imply there's such a thing as an ideal weight, or not being able to talk about last weekend's hike because enjoying the countryside is a dog-whistle for racism (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/british-countryside-racist-white-space-charities-claim/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/british-countrys...). Once you decide that discussing group differences is impolite and therefore verboten, the only logical outcome is to conclude that there is no reason for any group differences to exist, but they do which means it must be due to oppression. In other words, defining politeness that way ends in requiring everyone to be Marxist. That has outcomes that are objectively worse than societies that use a narrow definition (e.g. compare hunger levels in America vs North Korea). It's perfectly reasonable to set up a forum where everyone is required to be committed to the tenets of Marxism under the guise of politeness, but you can't have such a forum and also have it be intellectually curious or truth seeking.