> Huh, no I can't.

The point is, any human can be a romantic partner to any other. Therefore, his argument should be that no pair of humans should work together ever for risk of romantic entanglements.

Except it doesn't work that way, because we're all really used to the idea that in the workplace, you treat your colleagues as colleagues, not as fantasy-future-partners.

This isn't PC. It's just basic common sense, that he's lost his grip on, because he sees women first as romantic partners or sex objects or whatever, and second as scientists.

>Ok, why would that not be the case?

Because of professionalism. The root of term used for “professions” like law, medicine, engineering etc. is that one professes to a code of ethics. That code should overrule base desires.

We generally wouldn’t accept a doctor who views and treats patients primarily as an income stream despite greed being a near-universal human drive and we shouldn’t expect a professor to view subordinates as potential romantic partners. Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it.

> Acknowledging the drive exists isn’t a reason to condone it.

So, exactly what Hunt said in his speech.

Maybe you can help me understand the context better. From the GP post where he seems to advocate for separate male and female labs he seems to imply there isn’t enough professionalism present to have co-ed labs.

I’m saying that claim is more an implication of the person saying it and their (lack of) professional ethics than an indictment of the subordinates. It’s very similar in my mind to the recent arguments about gender in military units

The context is that he in essence says that this problem has no good solution, but he thinks that the co-ed labs are the best alternative even with all the shortcomings that go with them. Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love and the PC solution crumbles to dust. And FWIW, I think he's right.

>Everyone will be perfectly professional until someone falls in love

Isn’t this the case with everything? I.e., if “everything is fine until it isn’t” it’s not really saying much of anything except he doesn’t think he can create a culture of professionalism within his lab. Does this “welp, we can’t do anything about our base desires” extend outside romantic relations? Would it be acceptable to claim “well, physical altercations are just going to happen because you know people will get mad at each other from time to time”?

I’m not hiding behind professionalism, I’m saying it’s reasonable to acknowledge those base desires while also expecting a higher standard of behavior.

> Would it be acceptable to claim “well, physical altercations are just going to happen because you know people will get mad at each other from time to time”?

Are you willing to punish people with jail time or worse for falling in love and adopting the behaviour that goes with it? This is the other extreme of your argument, and there are many places in the world where this is the social norm.

The PI can do everything he/she wants, love will happen and people will behave accordingly. The point is acknowledging that this is not a problem that arises at a single point in time allowing you to fire the offender, but that it happens along a continuum that will constantly decrease lab efficiency.

>Are you willing to punish people with jail time or worse for falling in love and adopting the behaviour that goes with it?

No, because one is a criminal offense and the other is a breach of ethics. From that standpoint, it was a bad analogy. But I would hold someone accountable for being unprofessional in the workplace. To be clear, I’m not saying to punish people for falling in love, I’m saying you can hold them accountable for letting it affect the workplace and creating an unprofessional environment.

>The PI can do everything he/she wants, love will happen and people will behave accordingly.

This is probably where we disagree. I think the PI holds some responsibility for setting the tone of the work culture. You may not be able to control people’s feelings but you can make it clear that certain actions are not going to be tolerated. That’s especially necessary in cases of fraternization. It’s the PI’s job to maintain the professional standards of the lab.

Where do non-straight people fit into this "solution"?

They don't. I fail to see how that's surprising given that straight people don't fit either.

Plenty of us have absolutely no problem working in same-sex environments, and plenty of straight people have no issues working in coed environments.

This is very clearly a case of the professor being unprofessional and exploitative of his position of power.

Plenty and plenty, yes. Now, what's a solution that would work for everyone, males females and others alike?

This is very clearly a professor acknowledging the problems that arise due to interindividual biology in work environments. Unlike PC supporters hiding the issue under the blanket of professionalism.

I think an obvious solution would be to exclude anyone who is incapable of managing the bare minimum level of professionalism that's required in a workplace.

If someone is incapable of managing their feelings in a workplace then maybe they don't belong in one, and their colleagues should not be the ones who are punished for that.

I don't expect you to agree with me here.

When you're, like 2 years old, and you want a toy in the sandpit, you grab it. And if some other kid has it, too bad for them, because you want it, and that's what's important.

Somehow, most people manage to figure out that this kind of behavior isn't appropriate, and hide the issue under the blanket of being-a-decent-human-being.

I don't understand how dealing with sexual or romantic feelings is any different.