So, I was thinking.. the thing about science vs ethics is that there is a somewhat strict method in place for conducting science (the aptly named scientific method), which makes it easier to evaluate the methodology of research, and to peer review said research, while ethics has no such common standard. When science does it's experimentation, there are clearer guidelines for how to properly do things, like isolate variables, or check for sample bias, etc, but popular ethics does no such thing.

I think it would help if there were clearer, popularly accepted, common guidelines on how to conduct unbiased ethical research, and that promoting and refining something like that would be easier than promoting the still unpopular opinions that result from observing such a method.

It would have things like well.. properly isolating variables, and making sure your methodology adequately serves to derive an answer to the initial question/problem, making an apt hypothesis to test, never making generalizations, as they are inherently unfounded, and holy shit - PROPER ABSTRACTION to assist with making proper comparisons, a lot more.. I dont know. I think it also would probably have to have a strong focus on establishing the limitations of, and defining the axioms that its initial question/problem relies on, so there could be multiple valid, tested theories concluded depending on the initial axiom (eg. a different conclusion from the axiom where one is to assume gender constructivism (or parts of it), and one is to assume gender essentialism (or parts of it), ceteris paribus, but with both conclusions sharing similar validity, from both having been derived from undergoing a similar common standard for conducting proper testing)

people like the tinmen blog come up with posts that examine a possible inequality, actually try to check for an inequality by looking at both sides similarly, comparing the abstract concept's underlying issues (the generalizations directed against men are hypocritically identical to the abstract concepts unerlying racial profiling and generalizations), provides sources, AND STILL he gets called a right winger and people are afraid to share his content.

Meanwhile feminists and the woke progressive crowd can secure funding for exclusively female focused body positivity initiatives, even tho the underlying abstract concept behind it (ways in which society unfairly values women) was NEVER compared to the abstract concept for men (ways in which society unfairly values men) It fails to establish a proper premise, which would likely involve an axiom that suggests comparisons between the genders regarding this issue must be examined. It failed to employ proper abstraction, if any at all. It fails to employ proper variable isolated comparisons. Still, it succeeds, because no one knows how to check if it's invalid, or biased. The tinmen blog fails, but "manspreading" succeeds..

If people were being killed for practicing medicine, because it was seen as unholy magic, I think that it would probably help more to have a simple, self evidently reasonable and explainable framework to determine if something is the application of non-unholy magical information, than it would be to just try to keep making better medicine, and hoping for the best