Because it's simpler than saying "within the humanities and the non-psychological social sciences"?
I would actually definitely say that, having dealt with both formal-scientific and social-scientific arguments in a post-baccalaureate setting - Poe's Law is inherent outside of the formal sciences for a reason.
And I'm telling you, as a student of the social sciences, that in the situation of every discipline feminism is involved with except for the behavioral sciences, argumentation relies significantly on the properties of the person stating it (at the primary source level, which is largely the level seen in just about all of the specific examples I've named - though even a secondary source using large-scale statistics relies on the standardized properties of their primary sources as well as their own properties to determine their conclusions).
You seem to be continually trying to fit the 'circle' of the formal sciences into the much larger 'square' of the social sciences, and the difference in 'surface area' is really showing.
Then what was this about?
To anyone reading this, I would like to point out that I don't look down on science, but social sciences (and philosophy too) do not rely on empirical evidence as directly as natural science, so that is why I insisted on it more.
Every social science I've had direct involvement with has relied primarily on empirical evidence to come to their conclusions; that's why they call themselves the social sciences.
I was referring to the greater role of semantical argumentation over mathematics and formal logic, and the impossibility to directly measure mental states.
Now, technically what you said isn't in contradiction with what I said at all, but it was written as if it was a counterargument. So, I can only read it as "social sciences rely on empirical evidence using equally direct methodology as natural sciences." You even bolded the word "science," as if all fields of science operate with the same methodology.
But even I never meant that you are supposed to argue in social sciences heavily based on the properties of person. You are always calling people out on lack of empirical evidence and mock semantical argumentation, yet your empirical evidence is this
? The gender of the person stating the argument, coated in vague speculation?
Well then. I have suddenly found myself in possession of new empirical evidence. For example, I could say something like this:
Sociologists have chosen to define the word "oppression" the way they do because they are biased due to socially constructed trends within sociology. The definition is detached from morality because of its statistical nature, but the word chosen has strong moral connotations and is therefore used to create the illusion of different moral implications than the analysis actually yields. The same applies to "patriarchy" and so on.
For example, they choose to say "Women are oppressed by men" instead of "Women face gender discrimination in society because of socially constructed gender roles" because the former produces an impression that focuses on women as the ones discriminated against and men as the ones carrying out the discrimination, even if other forms of discrimination exist. It also gives too much focus to statistical power difference and not enough to what causes the power difference in the first place: people's tendency to passively absorb traditional gender roles and inability to treat each other as genuine individuals.
Actually, I think this reasoning is far better than just appealing to simple gender bias because it is based on a deeper understanding of social processes and analyzes the actual expressions used to demonstrate the bias.
she's not saying "a figure of authority says so, so it's true"
she's saying "through observations conducted in a rather well-established scientific field, it has been repeatedly and predominantly demonstrated that this is so, so it's true"
If mocking arguments due to the gender of the person stating them really was the universal level of "observation" and "demonstration" in sociology, I would feel sorry for the field. It studies an important subject, so it should be handled properly. But it is more of a problem with individual sociologists rather than all of them. It is all the more reason to use critical reading when reading sociology reports though.
But really, don't call people out on lack of empirism and mock semantical analysis so often if this is the extent of your empirism.