What you mentioned here dovetails into what I was talking about before.
"not a professional thing for psychologist/licensed medical professional to do"...that statement is artificially elevating the practice/profession to something it's not. A psychiatrist would be medical professional, a psychologist is not.
Per the Cleveland Clinic:
Despite the word “clinical,” a clinical psychologist isn't a medical doctor. They usually can't order medical tests, like blood or imaging tests, and they generally can't prescribe medication.
It's similar to how it comes across when people speak about chiropractors as if they're real doctors or medical professionals.
This piece by the LA Times summed it up pretty well
Why psychology isn't science
www.latimes.com
The dismissive attitude scientists have toward psychologists isn’t rooted in snobbery; it’s rooted in intellectual frustration. It’s rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don’t have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It’s rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend they are scientists.
That’s right. Psychology isn’t science.
Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.
So, in more accurate terms, it's "
one self-righteous bloviating person gets license threatened by panel of other self-righteous bloviating people for reasons of political correctness"
Now, as I noted before, it's not a government thing, the government isn't censoring his speech, so any claims to the contrary by him or others are false. A industry-specific licensing entity is free to enforce whichever standards they'd like.
But that should be kept in its proper context, and the decision of such a panel shouldn't be elevated or attempted to used as some sort of "lofty high-level proof" of how right or wrong Peterson is in any of his statements.
If a panel that licenses Naturopaths decided to yank the license from another Naturopath for making a controversial statement, nobody would say "see, this proves that person was wrong, even this panel agrees" as to imply that it should carry the same weight as that of real doctors or scientists.
