[scottishfiction]

Speaking of fallacies, how about the one where parenthood increases your risk of underperformance 'exponentially', or is in any way a 'risk factor'. Check your bias. Parenthood is as likely to make you better at your job.

[read_if_gay_]

And how about the strawman? GP didn’t argue that parenthood may make OP lose his job, but that he already is in a position where he might lose his job due to underperforming previously. And if that happens, he’s unquestionably better off without kids.

[ClumsyPilot]

Is he really in any risk of losing his job? I do not see how either your or OP came to conclusion.

I have met people who were under impression they were performing poorly, but actually they were doing great work. They just were disinterested in the job, which is a different issue.

[read_if_gay_]

The point is OP won't know if he it at risk, and yes Imposter Syndrome exists, so it's true that we don't know whether he really is at risk or not. But having kids still raises the stakes a lot.

[collyw]

> Parenthood is as likely to make you better at your job.

Have you got any evidence to back that up?

[scottishfiction]

I’m explicitly not making any claims about the affect of parenthood on performance in saying that in the absence of any evidence, it is as likely to make you better as it is worse. The burden of proof lies with the GP, who sees it as a risk.

[collyw]

I highlighted the claim that you did make and asked you to respond to that.

[scottishfiction]

My point is that I didn’t make a claim, I refuted GP’s by saying that either outcome is equally likely as there’s no proven link between parenthood and performance. If GP wants to claim there’s a negative causal link, the burden of proof lies with them.

[read_if_gay_]

You didn't refute GP, you refuted a strawman. And snidely.