I upvoted you because I think it's a good question.

One problem is that nowadays, people often don't get presented with the entirety of the available evidence on politically charged questions (like gender equality). Whatever pundit or facebook friend will cherry pick the evidence that suits their agenda, even if that evidence has been thoroughly debunked. So while I agree with you that in the context of academic curiosity, everything that can pass peer review should be published, sometimes publishing something that you know will be debunked later could lead to a net societal loss and should therefore be avoided.

Then again, I'm very against silencing opinions, even for the "greater good" (within some framework I'm sure you could describe China's censorship as for the "greater good")