But… I mean, think of a bakery of all (straight) men.

Then think of the same bakery, but it's all (straight) women.

Then imagine the same bakery, but it's mixed sex.

Can you see what happens?

no, not really. bakeries you say?

Even if there's no attraction going on in the last case, the fact that there could be dramatically changes the unspoken dynamics. It's just not as stable as the other two.

Things like… if a man notices a female coworker struggling with a flour sifter, and he comes in one day with a device he purchased to help her out… it raises questions that just wouldn't have arisen if the two coworkers had been the same sex.

oh. ok. flour sifters, man, yeah, those things are crazy.

Feel like the very beginning of this is not completely crazy (I've also thought in the past that straight people often perform "attractiveness" more for the approval of their same-sex friends) but it seems to kind of jump off the evo-psych deep end after that, lol

Also you can't build a bunch of assumptions about "we should organize society this way" while ignoring the existence of LGBT people, and then go "yeah I know I ignored them but it simplified my analysis." Like yeah it simplifies the analysis to ignore a bunch of stuff that actually exists in reality, but... then that means maybe your conclusions about how to structure society are wrong??

edit: also this quote is choice:

I don't know if this really happens. But even if not, the fiction does a great job of highlighting the dynamic I'm thinking of.

I’m not convinced this person has had any kind of social interaction beyond making purchases in years. I’m equally convinced this person has lived infinite lives in their head with every female service that made the mistake of smiling.

I recognize I've been very cis/hetero normative here. I liken this to removing friction from physics. There's no such thing as actually frictionless physics in the real world (as far as I know)… but friction is derived from principles that are easier to see from the imagined frictionless case.

Okay so in order to explain how the world works you have to remove gay people because the principles are only visible if you remove gay people. Or if you have gay people this whole theory seems like a house of cards?

Men will literally write a 17 minute article before asking women 'hey how can I become more attractive'

And I'm adamantly against pretending real things aren't real. I think that's actually more fundamentally toxic than is homophobia, transphobia, etc.

Euh, well at least all the red flags will attract tankies.

Makery: The bakery ... for straight men! Now with scones in monster truck and shark testosterone flavors! GRAAARRR

btw, this is the top mind who previously asked "where's the economic incentive for wokism coming from?"

he's also the cofounder of CFAR, in case anyone ever tries to make out he isn't a normative rationalist

Two lines into his little disclaimer and I already knew this guy was a god damn occultist

a monkey trying to fuck a football, written equivalent

He should really attempt to be less wrong about everything

I’m too sick to read all that. Can the chuds pause their chudding for a bit so I can sneer later? Thanks