It's reasonable and "professional" to want dynamically typed scripting language, for things where real types are a burden not a benefit, which also has libraries that work properly.
For me, that's the benefit of typing in python (as shonky as it is) -- you can use it to help write better library code, then ignore the types (except as accurate documentation) when using those libraries.
Maybe there are other languages that can do this, but the ones i know all have their own downsides.
There is, in my opinion, very little value in a type system that allows types to just be ignored. Or even a negative value, because it instills a false sense of security, because it does not actually prevent any of the mistakes that a type system is supposed to prevent.
If it catches bugs before run-time, that's a benefit to me, in the same way that testing doesn't catch all bugs (and yes, can introduce a false sense of security), but most people still think it's a good idea.
You obviously don't get the haskell experience, where if your program type checks it's probably correct, but the alternative (if, remember, you want a dynamically typed scripting language) is no type checking, which is definitely worse for some people.
For me, that's the benefit of typing in python (as shonky as it is) -- you can use it to help write better library code, then ignore the types (except as accurate documentation) when using those libraries.
Maybe there are other languages that can do this, but the ones i know all have their own downsides.