Against Overgendering Harassment

A #MeToo-era argument that sexual-harassment discourse is inappropriately gendered: ~30% of victims are men and ~20% of perpetrators women (poll data + crime-ratio reasoning), yet the framing insists only men harass and only women suffer. Scott argues the 'structural oppression' excuse is a hit-job frame, using the effective outgroup-framing test: you'd never accept 'we must support the Christian victims of Muslim terrorism' or 'white victims of black crime' even if the perpetrator ratio skews that way — 'but I'm right about the ratio' is no defense. The gendered framing prevents anyone from seeing both perspectives (the do-you-know-which-of-your-friends-is-a-harasser point, the exit>voice-for-men point). Solution: treat harassment like terrorism (bad regardless of group; suspicious of stereotyping).

Quality 71 · Strong. 71 — high Strong. A sharp, clear, memorable culture-war argument anchored by a genuinely effective logical device (the outgroup-framing test) and the generative both-sides-blindness point. Held at high-Strong because it's topical (2017 #MeToo) and object-level advocacy.

Claude’s paradigm shift 55 · Moderate. 55 — Notable. The 'overgendering as hit-job frame' argument + the terrorism/crime parallel test is a fresh, generative move.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 — minor/within-blog. Discourse-level culture-war argument; no material reach.