Current Events > Jordan Peterson "Can men and women work together in the workplace?"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jordan Peterson fans ITT: Women wearing makeup is them asking for sexual harassment. Men haven't evolved enough to suppress their sexual urges.

So much for all that personal responsibility that Peterson advocates for huh?
---

iClockwork posted...

Jordan Peterson fans ITT: Women wearing makeup is them asking for sexual harassment. Men haven't evolved enough to suppress their sexual urges.

So much for all that personal responsibility that Peterson advocates for huh?

---

I'm no JP groupie and I was ready to pile on once I heard the gist itt, but then I watched the full video. Yall are oversimplifying what he's saying and it's intellectually dishonest.
---

s0nicfan posted...

iClockwork posted...

Jordan Peterson fans ITT: Women wearing makeup is them asking for sexual harassment. Men haven't evolved enough to suppress their sexual urges.

So much for all that personal responsibility that Peterson advocates for huh?

I appreciate the amount of effort it must take to intentionally misrepresent his argument this badly.

I haven't misrepresented anything. Watch the video.
---

Romulox28 posted...

however my problem with JP is that he gets way too into the evolutionary angle of s*** (i.e. "women paint their lips red because it simulates flush lips during sexual arousal"), which i feel makes him pretty detached from reality. in this case, it is that the action of putting on lipstick has evolved past being a primal practice to having a different meaning altogether, and honestly for a lot of men, lipstick isn't even sexually appealing, so it's hard to say that a woman putting on lipstick is subconsciously making herself more sexually presentable. I like JP but i think he is up his own ass way too much, he takes arguments like this into the real world that dont really have any place there

The reason he's like that is because his authority only comes from him as a professor of unrelated science, so he has to root things in "science" to not just be some rando talking out of his ass.

I talked about this in the last topic involving Jordan Peterson, but he namedrops mathematicians in completely unrelated contexts in the same way. It's why is book essentially quotes philosophers to tell you why you should make your bed.
---

iClockwork posted...

s0nicfan posted...

iClockwork posted...

Jordan Peterson fans ITT: Women wearing makeup is them asking for sexual harassment. Men haven't evolved enough to suppress their sexual urges.

So much for all that personal responsibility that Peterson advocates for huh?

I appreciate the amount of effort it must take to intentionally misrepresent his argument this badly.

I haven't misrepresented anything. Watch the video.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

knuxnole posted...

Men and women work better separated in groups of their own gender

As bad as it sounds, I actually agree with this.

That's not to say men and women can't do the same jobs. It's just that having the opposite sex around is distracting, both genders have to watch what they say around the other gender.

I've never struggled with it dude.

Worthless emotional outburst of an anecdote. Especially considering the women you work with might disagree and think you are struggling. I expect better from you.
---

Sad_Face posted...

Romulox28 posted...

however my problem with JP is that he gets way too into the evolutionary angle of s*** (i.e. "women paint their lips red because it simulates flush lips during sexual arousal"), which i feel makes him pretty detached from reality. in this case, it is that the action of putting on lipstick has evolved past being a primal practice to having a different meaning altogether, and honestly for a lot of men, lipstick isn't even sexually appealing, so it's hard to say that a woman putting on lipstick is subconsciously making herself more sexually presentable. I like JP but i think he is up his own ass way too much, he takes arguments like this into the real world that dont really have any place there

Lipstick makes your lips look thicker, lusher, gives it that pump. Haven't you heard of the term, dsl (I'm not typing that out, much less capitalizing it)? That has never been used to describe thin lips. And red has been researched and documented to be more sexually provocative. The stereotype of a lead female vocalist of a jazz band wearing a deep red dress exists for a reason. Petersen isn't out of bounds here.

there is definitely truth to what he is saying about the basis for why lipstick exists, and why some people might find it sexually attractive, but you also have to take into account that people have been wearing lipstick (and other cosmetics) for thousands of years, and as time goes on, tastes and meanings change. as i said before, lots of men don't even find lipstick attractive on a woman and half the colors you'd see in a store aren't even red.

i feel like an equivalent argument to the one JP made about lipstick would be saying that men who wear jeans to their office job subconsciously want to be blue collar workers, because jeans were originally created for coal miners. obviously the premise is true but tastes and concepts change over time, so it's a tough statement to back up.

i kind of cringe every time JP starts getting into the evolutionary roots for social events because he often needs to be reeled back. for example, when he talks about the whole "kek" shit online being based on the Egyptian god Kek, it's laughable because he doesnt get that kek is just a word from World of Warcraft. problem is that JP is so immersed in academia that he cant detach from it sometimes, often to his detriment

Anteaterking posted...

The reason he's like that is because his authority only comes from him as a professor of unrelated science, so he has to root things in "science" to not just be some rando talking out of his ass.

I talked about this in the last topic involving Jordan Peterson, but he namedrops mathematicians in completely unrelated contexts in the same way. It's why is book essentially quotes philosophers to tell you why you should make your bed.

agreed 100%, and it shows when you hear him talk for an extended period of time. im reading his book and i see it now. i do think he is a generally intelligent guy though, someone who is interesting to listen to, and there's often a good message to what he preaches. doesnt have to be any more than that
---

If anything sometimes hot girls are a reason for me to come in work (pun intended)
---

Romulox28 posted...

i feel like an equivalent argument to the one JP made about lipstick would be saying that men who wear jeans to their office job subconsciously want to be blue collar workers, because jeans were originally created for coal miners. obviously the premise is true but tastes and concepts change over time, so it's a tough statement to back up.

Here's where things get interesting, though, because in most professional environments, especially office environments, jeans aren't considered appropriate clothing because it's too "casual". A guy couldn't wear a deep V shirt for the same reason. He's not entirely right in his full argument, but his "we don't know the rules" part has some truth to it, because things like heels and red lipstick were originally permitted back when women were only really secretaries and they were encouraged to look good for the men in the office. Now that women are peers in an office environment, re-evaluating what is and isn't appropriate attire may have some validity to it.
---

I'm a nurse and all the fellow nurses and aides on my station are female. We work together just fine.
---

Romulox28 posted...

there is definitely truth to what he is saying about the basis for why lipstick exists, and why some people might find it sexually attractive, but you also have to take into account that people have been wearing lipstick (and other cosmetics) for thousands of years

This is actually a very simple debate tactic that people without rational thinking skills eat up and you have to be careful of.

A (shitty)premise will get thrown out, "Men and women working together is advancing the deterioration of the workplace rapidly."

Then truths unrelated to the premise will be sprinkled throughout, natural red lips equate sexual arousal, to misdirect the other party and bolster the reputation of the one presenting the truths. In reality Red lipstick has nothing to do with the deterioration of the workplace.
---

The makeup bit was kinda weird. I mean, both sexes try to look attractive and professional in the workplace. To single out women and makeup seems weird.

But anyway, men and women work fine in most workplaces it seems. Can things be done to make it better? Sure. Can more rules be made? Sure. But I mean, what kind of rules is he talking about?
---

Romulox28 posted...

Sad_Face posted...

Romulox28 posted...

however my problem with JP is that he gets way too into the evolutionary angle of s*** (i.e. "women paint their lips red because it simulates flush lips during sexual arousal"), which i feel makes him pretty detached from reality. in this case, it is that the action of putting on lipstick has evolved past being a primal practice to having a different meaning altogether, and honestly for a lot of men, lipstick isn't even sexually appealing, so it's hard to say that a woman putting on lipstick is subconsciously making herself more sexually presentable. I like JP but i think he is up his own ass way too much, he takes arguments like this into the real world that dont really have any place there

Lipstick makes your lips look thicker, lusher, gives it that pump. Haven't you heard of the term, dsl (I'm not typing that out, much less capitalizing it)? That has never been used to describe thin lips. And red has been researched and documented to be more sexually provocative. The stereotype of a lead female vocalist of a jazz band wearing a deep red dress exists for a reason. Petersen isn't out of bounds here.

there is definitely truth to what he is saying about the basis for why lipstick exists, and why some people might find it sexually attractive, but you also have to take into account that people have been wearing lipstick (and other cosmetics) for thousands of years, and as time goes on, tastes and meanings change. as i said before, lots of men don't even find lipstick attractive on a woman and half the colors you'd see in a store aren't even red.

i feel like an equivalent argument to the one JP made about lipstick would be saying that men who wear jeans to their office job subconsciously want to be blue collar workers, because jeans were originally created for coal miners. obviously the premise is true but tastes and concepts change over time, so it's a tough statement to back up.

i kind of cringe every time JP starts getting into the evolutionary roots for social events because he often needs to be reeled back. for example, when he talks about the whole "kek" shit online being based on the Egyptian god Kek, it's laughable because he doesnt get that kek is just a word from World of Warcraft. problem is that JP is so immersed in academia that he cant detach from it sometimes, often to his detriment

Anteaterking posted...

The reason he's like that is because his authority only comes from him as a professor of unrelated science, so he has to root things in "science" to not just be some rando talking out of his ass.

I talked about this in the last topic involving Jordan Peterson, but he namedrops mathematicians in completely unrelated contexts in the same way. It's why is book essentially quotes philosophers to tell you why you should make your bed.

agreed 100%, and it shows when you hear him talk for an extended period of time. im reading his book and i see it now. i do think he is a generally intelligent guy though, someone who is interesting to listen to, and there's often a good message to what he preaches. doesnt have to be any more than that

The Kek thing being associated with an Egyptian frog God of Chaos isn't Peterson's own finding.

It's from the online Kekistan meme folks. Basically some /pol trolls founded the fictional nation of Kekistan, referred to themselves as Kekistanis, and founded the satirical religion the Cult of Kek that worships that ancient Egyptian frog God of Chaos, Kek. They also revere Pepe, the meme frog and Shadilay by the 80s band P.E.P.E. is their national anthem.
---

Seems like Peterson is doing his usual data collecting "idk" stance to form a discussion shtick.

As for his makeup comments, he takes the evolutionary angle for origin. The defense is that culturally it's evolved into "just looking nice." But why must women make their lips red, cheeks blush, high heels, etc to simply "look nice." Seems a little demeaning. Especially since professional "looking nice" for men is simply groom your hair (don't look like you've been homeless.)

There's clearly a problem with the #metoo movement popping up in every workplace. To ignore how prevalent it is and to suggest it's not a large problem, is to fight progress and enable further harassment. Similar arguments have been made to dismiss racism.

Esrac posted...

The Kek thing being associated with an Egyptian frog God of Chaos isn't Peterson's own finding.

It's from the online Kekistan meme folks. Basically some /pol trolls founded the fictional nation of Kekistan, referred to themselves as Kekistanis, and founded the satirical religion the Cult of Kek that worships that ancient Egyptian frog God of Chaos, Kek. They also revere Pepe, the meme frog and Shadilay by the 80s band P.E.P.E. is their national anthem.

this is all made up after the fact. there wasnt some guy on /pol/ researching egyptian gods so he could start a right wing movement, it was a bunch of computer nerds making memes to piss off easily offended social justice people
---

Peterson has interesting ideas and things to say, but he focuses way too much on how we act like wild beasts still too much for my liking.

Jordan Peterson was definitely over-extending his views but he has a history of being needlessly stubborn about sticking up for his beliefs, which is ironic for someone so adamantly opposed to ideology.

The dude does not support same sex couples raising children because he feels they are at a disadvantage by not having both a male and female figure for their development.

Completely asinine

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Peterson has interesting ideas and things to say, but he focuses way too much on how we act like wild beasts still too much for my liking.

Outside of religion, there's really no reason to pretend we're not more evolved animals. Even prominent feminists have spoken out about the dangers of pretending the world isn't a dangerous place because people are only a few steps away from savagery.
---

Romulox28 posted...

there is definitely truth to what he is saying about the basis for why lipstick exists, and why some people might find it sexually attractive, but you also have to take into account that people have been wearing lipstick (and other cosmetics) for thousands of years, and as time goes on, tastes and meanings change. as i said before, lots of men don't even find lipstick attractive on a woman and half the colors you'd see in a store aren't even red.

It's fine if lots of men don't find lipstick attractive, but a lot more men, i.e. the majority, find thick lips attractive, especially in this culture and age. That's why women are willing throw down cash on botox injections. For those who aren't going to do that, there's lipstick to help make your lips thicker. And red does in fact make you look more sexually attractive. This has been researched.

https://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3268

Romulox28 posted...

i feel like an equivalent argument to the one JP made about lipstick would be saying that men who wear jeans to their office job subconsciously want to be blue collar workers, because jeans were originally created for coal miners. obviously the premise is true but tastes and concepts change over time, so it's a tough statement to back up.

Now you're completely missing the JP's point in why he's bringing up lipstick. Let me give you an equivalent argument. You leave apple syrup out in the open in your kitchen because you love the smell but it attracts ants. You complain about the hoard of ants being attracted to the open syrup but you refuse to stop leaving the syrup out. That's where the contradiction comes in so you have to give up one or the other or come up with a creative way to have your cake and eat it too.
---

Sad_Face posted...

Now you're completely missing the JP's point in why he's bringing up lipstick. Let me give you an equivalent argument. You leave apple syrup out in the open in your kitchen because you love the smell but it attracts ants. You complain about the hoard of ants being attracted to the open syrup but you refuse to stop leaving the syrup out. That's where the contradiction comes in so you have to give up one or the other or come up with a creative way to have your cake and eat it too.

Except let's replace ants with adult human beings.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Outside of religion, there's really no reason to pretend we're not more evolved animals. Even prominent feminists have spoken out about the dangers of pretending the world isn't a dangerous place because people are only a few steps away from savagery.

It's easy to bullshit about evolutionary psychology. Very little of it is actually empirically supported or even a valid scientific theory.
---

Sad_Face posted...

Now you're completely missing the JP's point in why he's bringing up lipstick. Let me give you an equivalent argument. You leave apple syrup out in the open in your kitchen because you love the smell but it attracts ants. You complain about the hoard of ants being attracted to the open syrup but you refuse to stop leaving the syrup out. That's where the contradiction comes in so you have to give up one or the other or come up with a creative way to have your cake and eat it too.

iClockwork posted...

Jordan Peterson fans ITT: Women wearing makeup is them asking for sexual harassment. Men haven't evolved enough to suppress their sexual urges.

So much for all that personal responsibility that Peterson advocates for huh?

---

Romulox28 posted...

Esrac posted...

The Kek thing being associated with an Egyptian frog God of Chaos isn't Peterson's own finding.

It's from the online Kekistan meme folks. Basically some /pol trolls founded the fictional nation of Kekistan, referred to themselves as Kekistanis, and founded the satirical religion the Cult of Kek that worships that ancient Egyptian frog God of Chaos, Kek. They also revere Pepe, the meme frog and Shadilay by the 80s band P.E.P.E. is their national anthem.

this is all made up after the fact. there wasnt some guy on /pol/ researching egyptian gods so he could start a right wing movement, it was a bunch of computer nerds making memes to piss off easily offended social justice people

Yeah, by latching on to hilarious coincidences. But the point is that's where Peterson is getting it. Because those Kekistani trolls were embracing that because it was having hilarious results.
---

yikes @ TC

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Outside of religion, there's really no reason to pretend we're not more evolved animals. Even prominent feminists have spoken out about the dangers of pretending the world isn't a dangerous place because people are only a few steps away from savagery.

It's easy to bullshit about evolutionary psychology. Very little of it is actually empirically supported or even a valid scientific theory.

Are you suggesting people aren't animals a few steps away from savagery? Because you say it's easy to bullshit evolutionary psychology, but it seems even easier to ignore the entirety of human history as evidence for the fact that people are, in fact, only a few steps away from savagery.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Are you suggesting people aren't animals a few steps away from savagery? Because you say it's easy to bullshit evolutionary psychology, but it seems even easier to ignore the entirety of human history as evidence for the fact that people are, in fact, only a few steps away from savagery.

No, I'm saying all words following a statement like "we evolved from x, therefore we behave like.." are very likely bullshitty.

It's not that we don't have conserved mechanisms across species, it's just that the people bullshitting about evolutionary psychology are almost always constructing shitty just-so stories.
(for example, the circadian rhythm is probably the best example of a conserved mechanism across species, but nobody sees Jordan Peterson talking about circadian rhythms because it doesn't provide some sort of satisfying lay understanding of behavior).

Of what's pretty much the only time to try to formalize and directly test an evolutionary psychology account, survival processing (I think the researcher behind it is Nairne) can be much better explained by other psychological processes.
---

COVxy posted...

for example, the circadian rhythm is probably the best example of a conserved mechanism across species, but nobody sees Jordan Peterson talking about circadian rhythms because it doesn't provide some sort of satisfying lay understanding of behavior

If it's pointless to talk about why would he talk about it.

Seriously do you even stop and think about the arguments you're making? You'd save yourself some embarrassment if you did.

Ctrl + F: "pointless"
Keyword not found.
---

COVxy posted...

Ctrl + F: "pointless"
Keyword not found.

Ctrl + F: "pseudointellectual jerk off session"
Keyword found: Every COVxy post ever made

Well, I'm glad that after immediately mischaracterizing my argument and being called out for it, you've resorted to your go-to insults.
---

COVxy posted...

Well, I'm glad that after immediately mischaracterizing my argument and being called out for it, you've resorted to your go-to insults.

You should conduct a study on how triggered you get

You're right, I'm so triggered, by responding to your posts I've demonstrated how triggered I am.

Lol.
---

COVxy posted...

Well, I'm glad that after immediately mischaracterizing my argument and being called out for it, you've resorted to your go-to insults.

And what was your argument with the post that clear quoted? Why are you talking about why Jordan Peterson never talks about circadian rhythm? Why would he ever?
---

Kazi1212 posted...

COVxy posted...

Well, I'm glad that after immediately mischaracterizing my argument and being called out for it, you've resorted to your go-to insults.

And what was your argument with the post that clear quoted? Why are talking about why Jordan Peterson never talks about circadian rhythm? Why would he ever?

I mean, you can go back to the post chain and read the context of the discussion.

The point wasn't that evolution hasn't played a role in shaping our behavior and the biological basis for our behavior, just that the scope of that discussion when actually grounded in science is uninteresting to the people Jordan Peterson is trying to appeal to. The types of evolutionary arguments put forward are just-so stories that only sound scientific, but are about as scientific as Freudian psychoanalysis.
---

COVxy posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

COVxy posted...

Well, I'm glad that after immediately mischaracterizing my argument and being called out for it, you've resorted to your go-to insults.

And what was your argument with the post that clear quoted? Why are talking about why Jordan Peterson never talks about circadian rhythm? Why would he ever?

I mean, you can go back to the post chain and read the context of the discussion.

The point wasn't that evolution hasn't played a role in shaping our behavior and the biological basis for our behavior, just that the scope of that discussion when actually grounded in science is uninteresting to the people Jordan Peterson is trying to appeal to. The types of evolutionary arguments put forward are just-so stories that only sound scientific, but are about as scientific as Freudian psychoanalysis.

The vast majority of evolutionary arguments, though, also work if you use the entirety of human history as evidence. Yes, "we're just evolved apes" isn't proof that humans will act like apes in certain contexts. Luckily we have billions of people to exist as the largest dataset possible, and billions more spread out over thousands of years of known human history.
---

yeah evolutionary psychology is mostly bunk. women don't wear red lipstick cause it makes them look turned on or whatever. just cause something "makes sense" to you doesn't mean it's true when there's no evidence for that. have any of you honestly looked at a woman wearing red lipstick and thought "wow she looks horny"? just cause this peterson guy is an academic and probably knows some shit doesn't mean everything he says is right or that he knows everything. he doesn't. stop appealing to authority
---

i remember bell hooks made a similar argument when talking about black people, putting them in white schools, and self esteem and mental health.

she argued that when they took a black kid away from her community, her peers, her family, and put in a hostile environment (racist white teachers, students etc) that this was harmful.

but any asshole could be like " SEE SHES A RACIST! SHES FOR SEGREGATION!"

similarly, i think hes saying that this is a new thing and folks dont know what they're doing yet. 40 years is not a lot of time in the span of human history. he says we'll see how this turns out.
---

COVxy posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

COVxy posted...

Well, I'm glad that after immediately mischaracterizing my argument and being called out for it, you've resorted to your go-to insults.

And what was your argument with the post that clear quoted? Why are talking about why Jordan Peterson never talks about circadian rhythm? Why would he ever?

I mean, you can go back to the post chain and read the context of the discussion.

The point wasn't that evolution hasn't played a role in shaping our behavior and the biological basis for our behavior, just that the scope of that discussion when actually grounded in science is uninteresting to the people Jordan Peterson is trying to appeal to. The types of evolutionary arguments put forward are just-so stories that only sound scientific, but are about as scientific as Freudian psychoanalysis.

Im not disagreeing with this. Im just not seeing the point of bringing up the circadian rhythm. Because even if evolutionary psychology and its respective claims were grounded in science, JP still would have no reason to bring up the circadian rhythm
---

s0nicfan posted...

The vast majority of evolutionary arguments, though, also work if you use the entirety of human history as evidence. Yes, "we're just evolved apes" isn't proof that humans will act like apes in certain contexts. Luckily we have billions of people to exist as the largest dataset possible, and billions more spread out over thousands of years of known human history.

Again, just like Freudian psychoanalysis and evolutionary just-so stories, historical evidence is particularly poor evidence, as you can construct any story you want to post-hoc explain behavior without ever being able to test it empirically.

Pretty much, if you say "we do this because of this evolved mechanism", you need to point to evidence that there actually does seem to be conservation of that mechanism across species. None of these arguments do so. They just say "look, this animal does this, we probably do too because of evolution!", or even worse they are just nonspecific philosophical arguments about human nature "we are just animals rummaging through the darkness and chaos!"

Kazi1212 posted...

Im just confused about the circadian rhythm part I guess. Because even if it was proven evolution played a role in shaping our behavior, Jordan Peterson would still never talk about the circadian rhythm because its wholly unrelated to the types of behavior he is interested in having a discussion about

You don't think the circadian rhythm plays an important role in behavior? I would argue that you simply don't know enough about the circadian rhythm then.

The issue is that rhythmic cycling of signalling molecules doesn't provide "deep" insights like "we are just animals rummaging around in the chaos and darkness of our life. Order brings us out of that darkness..." etc..
---

ThyCorndog posted...

yeah evolutionary psychology is mostly bunk. women don't wear red lipstick cause it makes them look turned on or whatever. just cause something "makes sense" to you doesn't mean it's true when there's no evidence for that. have any of you honestly looked at a woman wearing red lipstick and thought "wow she looks horny"? just cause this peterson guy is an academic and probably knows some shit doesn't mean everything he says is right or that he knows everything. he doesn't. stop appealing to authority

It goes beyond that as well.

Even 60+ year old women do their hair and put on make-up before they go the local store.

Women putting on make up is just part and parcel of western life.

It's no different to a man combing his hair and wearing a nice tie
---

clearaflagrantj posted...

COVxy posted...

for example, the circadian rhythm is probably the best example of a conserved mechanism across species, but nobody sees Jordan Peterson talking about circadian rhythms because it doesn't provide some sort of satisfying lay understanding of behavior

If it's pointless to talk about why would he talk about it.

Seriously do you even stop and think about the arguments you're making? You'd save yourself some embarrassment if you did.

I think he's saying that Jordan decides what his conclusion is and then shoehorns evolutionary biology into it which is why you never see him support arguments invoking evolutionary biology with established conserved mechanisms, because those tend to lend themselves to the other direction, conclusions coming from established facts.
---

You don't think the circadian rhythm plays an important role in behavior? I would argue that you simply don't know enough about the circadian rhythm then.

I do think circadian rhythm affects behavior, but I said its unrelated to types of behavior JP is focused commenting on. Unless of course the circadian rhythm influences sexual behavior in the way hes talking about and the context in which hes speaking, I dont see the point of it.
---

COVxy posted...

Again, just like Freudian psychoanalysis and evolutionary just-so stories, historical evidence is particularly poor evidence, as you can construct any story you want to post-hoc explain behavior without ever being able to test it empirically.

The problem is you can also make the same "just because it feels right doesn't mean it is" argument against any argument for social change. When it comes to things like, say, gender neutral pronouns, the narrative is "It'll be good for everyone just trust us" and that argument holds as much objective weight as any other. The only evidence used in these cases is historical evidence, because it would be unethical to screw around with people just to test a hypothesis.

Sometimes historical evidence is all you have to work with, because it's impossible to test a hypothesis at all in society outside of letting it happen organically without making it happen and hoping it doesn't screw everything up.
---

s0nicfan posted...

The problem is you can also make the same "just because it feels right doesn't mean it is" argument against any argument for social change. When it comes to things like, say, gender neutral pronouns, the narrative is "It'll be good for everyone just trust us" and that argument holds as much objective weight as any other. The only evidence used in these cases is historical evidence, because it would be unethical to screw around with people just to test a hypothesis.

Sometimes historical evidence is all you have to work with, because it's impossible to test a hypothesis at all in society outside of letting it happen organically without making it happen and hoping it doesn't screw everything up.

But the people who push for gender neutral pronouns don't pretend like they are giving a scientific argument for it.
---

s0nicfan posted...

The only evidence used in these cases is historical evidence, because it would be unethical to screw around with people just to test a hypothesis.

I mean, not really. That's literally what psychology is. People just don't really know what modern psychology looks like and assume it's more-or-less cigars and victorian daybeds.

and this:
Anteaterking posted...

But the people who push for gender neutral pronouns don't pretend like they are giving a scientific argument for it.

That is certainly not an argument I see coming from a scientific viewpoint. And to the extent to which it does, I'm just as likely to shoot it down as well.
---

Anteaterking posted...

s0nicfan posted...

The problem is you can also make the same "just because it feels right doesn't mean it is" argument against any argument for social change. When it comes to things like, say, gender neutral pronouns, the narrative is "It'll be good for everyone just trust us" and that argument holds as much objective weight as any other. The only evidence used in these cases is historical evidence, because it would be unethical to screw around with people just to test a hypothesis.

Sometimes historical evidence is all you have to work with, because it's impossible to test a hypothesis at all in society outside of letting it happen organically without making it happen and hoping it doesn't screw everything up.

But the people who push for gender neutral pronouns don't pretend like they are giving a scientific argument for it.

Like hell they're not
---

s0nicfan posted...

Like hell they're not

What science do people cite for using gender neutral pronouns? Scientific evidence for transgenderism isn't the same thing.
---

He just wanted to start a conversation.
---

D E E G S posted...

He just wanted to start a conversation.

Well there are better ways then saying women who wear makeup are asking for it.
---