[n4r9]

I don't think controversy needs to be modern. To take a more extreme example, it was common just over 100 years ago in the UK to hear that women should not have the vote due to the distinct natures of men and women [0]. Now (for comparison's sake) we hear Peterson talking about how women are naturally more "agreeable" and "self-sacrificing", and that this is vital for the purposes of childcare [1]. I'm not qualified to debate biological determinism, but I do wonder whether statements like this reinforce existing prejudices about the capabilities of both men and women in the workforce. Just recently for example there was an article about how men tend not to work in nurseries, "as parents assume they pose risk to children" [2].

[0] http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9hcKUUFn5k

[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/14/majority-co...

[ivoras]

Though I agree that they may have the same effect on the general population, there are still large differences between claiming that "on average, on a very large sample size, population X has more Y than Z," saying "population X must always be Y" and saying "population X is banned from doing anything but Y".

Whether there is a slipper-slope danger here is, I think, the real question, and how much other values should we sacrifice, if any, to actively and energetically avoid this slippery slope.