Jordan Peterson is bad news!

327 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Jordan Peterson is bad news!

And this Peterson fella wants to get involved in politcs. Give us a break.

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strong...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I read that article. He has political aspirations.He's a maniac and a pseudo-intellectual quasi-theocrat with a following of alt-right cretins. Imagine if he ran for the PC's in Ontario.Or the CPC. There is a rise of the alt-right/far right fascists going on in Canada mainly based in Quebec. I hate to say it but Madeline Albright is right. Fascism is knocking at our door. We must fight it even if they want to escalate things into violence which is slowly happening.

Just yesterday yet another  Quebec based ​far right fascist group invaded the offices of Vice Montreal. Where were the cops? I believe they are complicit. Which is becoming obvious with only antifa protesters being arrested and attacked by the pigs as  the fascists are left alone.

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/anti-immigrant-group-barges-into-offices-of-...

Personally I don't see the allure of Peterson. A lot of young morons cream their jeans whenever someoone trashes political correctness and trashing the Left. it's why the Left have to distance themselves from micro managing the populace. The fact is,the things motivating Peterson are not left wing. It's the government dealing with changes in our society.

Very bad news indeed.

 

cco

Jordan Peterson or Islamist Cleric?

Spoiler alert: They're all Peterson.

Another far-right pseudo-intellectual free speech grifter. Or as Macleans beautifully put it, the stupid man's smart person.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I read this article earlier today.  It's a good article, and worth the read.

I don't disagree with Peterson's earliest assertion:  that there's nothing to validate an infinite number of "genders" and a similar number of expected pronouns.

But after that he kind of jumped the shark, yes?  He's the new Ayn Rand now, and I'm glad he hasn't actually gotten into politics.  He's like if Doug Ford had a PhD, and breathed through his nose.

cco

I don't care what his perspective on gender identity is, honestly. And as discussed in that other thread, if he wanted to stand out on the corner passing out transphobic flyers, I'd support his freedom of speech. But he's playing up the idea that he's going to get sent to the gulag for misgendering his students. He can always quit his job and take a position at the religious institution of his choice, at which point his speech will be utterly untouchable under Canadian law. But he'd rather keep portraying himself as the lone lampholder in the swirling storm of communist darkness, being the last great white philosopher-king until the day he becomes the alt-right Jim Jones and leads his flock of incels out to their pickup trucks.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But he's playing up the idea that he's going to get sent to the gulag for misgendering his students.

Of course.  Such is what it is.  In another thread, supporters are playing up the idea that Julian Assange might get a lethal injection.  How else to rally the troops?  Nobody's going to down tools and light the torches because someone faces a modest fine.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

cco wrote:

But he's playing up the idea that he's going to get sent to the gulag for misgendering his students. He can always quit his job and take a position at the religious institution of his choice, at which point his speech will be utterly untouchable under Canadian law. But he'd rather keep portraying himself as the lone lampholder in the swirling storm of communist darkness, being the last great white philosopher-king until the day he becomes the alt-right Jim Jones and leads his flock of incels out to their pickup trucks.

I agree. These laws don't entail inprisonment. As I said,these laws are not even left wing. It's our governments both federally and provincially just adapting to changes in our society. Peterson really is the stupid man's intellect.

I also like your last sentence of him becoming the alt-right's Jim Jones leading his flock of incels to their pick up trucks.

It's why I get a chuckle when I'm called a 'cuck' by these morons. They probably don't even know what a cuck is and the few that do spend the majority of their days on Pornhub because females find them impossible to stomach.

It's become fashionable to be ignorant,uninformed and intolerant and everyone giving Peterson a platform to spew his pseudo-intellectualism on people who are able to get laid shouldn't validate this idiot and his paranoid far right theocratic bullshit.

He's the kind of village idiot who should be given a soap box and sent to Hyde Park where he can rave and drool at passerbys every Sunday.

I had the displeasure seeing him on Bill Maher's show. I never heard of him until then. I puked a little in my mouth when I found out he was Canadian.

 

voice of the damned

Magoo wrote: 

In another thread, supporters are playing up the idea that Julian Assange might get a lethal injection. 

Well, setting aside what we might think about Assange's agenda(I'm somewhat dubious myself), there is a case to be made that he might be facing lengthy prison time for his on-line publishing activities, depending if the US courts see a difference between him and the New York Times. And has anybody here agrued that he could be facing the death penalty? Even Chelsea Manning, the person more unambiguously guilty of leaking in that case, didn't get executed.

That said, I do agree that there is hyperbole on both the left and the right around issues to do with free speech etc. Heather Mallick wasn't being censored when the CBC removed her column on "white trash" Republicans(as some argued on babble), any more than the people moaning about "indians on welfare" were being censored when the same corporation removed their posts from the comments section.

Martin N.

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing. So the gist of this thread is: "I will defend his right to free speech with your life but let's hang him anyways"?

Cody87

cco wrote:
Or as Macleans beautifully put it, the stupid man's smart person.

My advice would be to be careful about that particular line of attack. Either people think Peterson is dumb or dangerous (so they already agree with you), or they think he's smart, in which case you're calling them dumb and they will become entrenched in their view rather than reconsider it.... You know..."something something fake news"

wage zombie

Martin N. wrote:

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing. So the gist of this thread is: "I will defend his right to free speech with your life but let's hang him anyways"?

Every comment in this thread contained more words than your post.  Add some substance or fuck off.

It's hilarious that you're following the Cathy Newman playbook ("so you're saying...") here, as petersonites tend to do.

Cody87

Martin N. wrote:

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing.

Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long.

Cody87

wage zombie wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing. So the gist of this thread is: "I will defend his right to free speech with your life but let's hang him anyways"?

Every comment in this thread contained more words than your post.  Add some substance or fuck off.

It's hilarious that you're following the Cathy Newman playbook ("so you're saying...") here, as petersonites tend to do.

So you're saying the substance of a comment is proportional to it's verbosity?

wage zombie

I'm saying it's pretty weak to make a drive-by which minimizes actual commentary as drive-bys.

cco

Martin N. wrote:

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing. So the gist of this thread is: "I will defend his right to free speech with your life but let's hang him anyways"?

Nope. Feel free to go back and actually read the thread. Calling someone wrong, stupid, transphobic, or anything along those lines is not actually a call to execute that person. Saying he has the right to free speech isn't agreeing with the content of that speech, either. Thanks for playing.

Cody87 wrote:

My advice would be to be careful about that particular line of attack. Either people think Peterson is dumb or dangerous (so they already agree with you), or they think he's smart, in which case you're calling them dumb and they will become entrenched in their view rather than reconsider it.... You know..."something something fake news"

If I were an elected official or other public figure, I'm sure I'd be quite careful with what I said. I'm just a poster on a message board, however, so I'm free to say Peterson has delusions of grandeur and what he's saying is idiotic and nearly devoid of content.

Rev Pesky

In reading this thread, I have seen several posters refer to Jordan Peterson as a 'pseudo-intellectual'. Given that he is a PHD, and spent five years as assistant professor at Harvard, I would suggest there is nothing pseudo about his intellect.

That doesn't make him right. Lots of very smart people have gone off the rails. One thinks of Fred Hoyle, an undoubtedly brilliant physicist who held all sorts of weird and wonderful views. 

Peterson may be wrong about many things, but there is nothing 'pseudo' about his intellect.

Martin N.

wage zombie wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing. So the gist of this thread is: "I will defend his right to free speech with your life but let's hang him anyways"?

Every comment in this thread contained more words than your post.  Add some substance or fuck off.

It's hilarious that you're following the Cathy Newman playbook ("so you're saying...") here, as petersonites tend to do.

My post was substantial and succinct. The fact that you refuse to recognize its point does not minimize my view, neither does your hostility or potty mouth.

I think the degree of outrage (and colourful rhetoric) espoused here speaks directly to the angst Dr Peterson stirs up with his refusal to bow to the mob.

Who is Cathy Newman?

Martin N.

wage zombie wrote:

I'm saying it's pretty weak to make a drive-by which minimizes actual commentary as drive-bys.

Actually, it was a drive-by acknowledging some spectacular drive-bys included in commentary. The very fact that the usually humourless are driven to ridicule the daunting Perfesser speaks to Peterson's ability to abrade the pc consciousness.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Martin N. wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing. So the gist of this thread is: "I will defend his right to free speech with your life but let's hang him anyways"?

Every comment in this thread contained more words than your post.  Add some substance or fuck off.

It's hilarious that you're following the Cathy Newman playbook ("so you're saying...") here, as petersonites tend to do.

My post was substantial and succinct. The fact that you refuse to recognize its point does not minimize my view, neither does your hostility or potty mouth.

I think the degree of outrage (and colourful rhetoric) espoused here speaks directly to the angst Dr Peterson stirs up with his refusal to bow to the mob.

Wow, you should send Peterson a video of yourself, reading this post, and perhaps he will consider hiring you as a warm up act for his alt-right crowds.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Martin N. wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

My,my. Some very thoughtful drive-bys here. Very amusing. So the gist of this thread is: "I will defend his right to free speech with your life but let's hang him anyways"?

Every comment in this thread contained more words than your post.  Add some substance or fuck off.

It's hilarious that you're following the Cathy Newman playbook ("so you're saying...") here, as petersonites tend to do.

My post was substantial and succinct. The fact that you refuse to recognize its point does not minimize my view, neither does your hostility or potty mouth.

I think the degree of outrage (and colourful rhetoric) espoused here speaks directly to the angst Dr Peterson stirs up with his refusal to bow to the mob.

 

There is no "mob".  There is simply a large and growing collection of thoughtful people of general good will who find Dr. Peterson's intellectual arrogance and inflexibility, as well as his absurd rhetorical excesses(such as his use of the term "Marxist" as if the word is a synonym for "Stalinist", and his implication that "deconstructionists" are essentially nothing more than another manifestation of the always-imaginary "communist conspiracy", as well as his recent pronouncements that all movements for progressive social change are an act of defiance against "divine will", and his bizarre call for "enforced monogamy" and his assertion that women are to blame for mass shootings by "incels") are legitimate causes for concern, if not outright terror.

Given that the man is openly discussing entering politics, why shouldn't people be free to critique his message?
And why should we accept his delusion that he can only have the right to "free speech" if he's allowed to refuse to accept the gender identities of transgender and non-binary students?

If you agree with the guy, fine.  That's your right.

It's not an injustice to him or to you that a lot of people are fighting back against the essentially fascistic implications of his philosophy, or that a lot of us simply reject the idea that he has some sort of special right to demand that his ideas and himself as an academic and a psychologist must all be given special exemption from accountability. 

Jordan Peterson is simply one person with one set of views.  He is not the God Emperor of Wisdom.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I heard a comment that Peterson is quite good at psychology. The problem is that he is making comments on law, without ever having studied it.

Mobo2000

I've spent my time with Peterson and am pretty much done.   At this point the mainstream liberal press reaction to him is much more interesting to me than he is.   

To me, this is the best critical video of Peterson I have seen (full disclosure, it was linked to  a Cracked magazine article, the poster is a transwoman, she's funny and very smart and it's worth the 25 minutes.   Perhaps slightly NSFW):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

I thought the recent  Toronto Star article was atrocious, ethically and in terms of content.   The writer does not quote Peterson once, only the writer's memory ("nearly word for word") of a private phone conversation, personal conversations and emails.   He spends his ink essentially publically psychoanalyzing Peterson without serious engaging with his ideas or why they are popular.  I think it would evoke sympathy in a reader unfamiliar with Peterson.

Peterson, for all his many faults, is careful with his words (apart from "neo-marxist postmodernists") and his actual views are misrepresented constantly (and sometimes hilariously).   I think people who find Peterson abhorrent should reconcil that with his popularity.   I was surprised how quickly his fame grew, and not sure yet what lessons to draw from it.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mobo2000 wrote:

To me, this is the best critical video of Peterson I have seen (full disclosure, it was linked to  a Cracked magazine article, the poster is a transwoman, she's funny and very smart and it's worth the 25 minutes.   Perhaps slightly NSFW):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

That video by ContraPoints is clever indeed,  but I prefer PZ Myers' take on the lobster question. This is but one of many examples of how Peterson uses "facts" which are actually not facts to push his horrid ideology. He is a charlatan, a demagogue, and a very dangerous person.

Mobo2000

Martin:   Cathy Newman is a british TV interviewer, she had a widely distributed interview with Peterson where she was widely criticized for putting words in his mouth.   "So what you're saying is..." was a fairly prominent youtube meme for a bit.   Full interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

The video I linked in post above discusses this interview a bit and Peterson's general debate strategies.   I can't recommend it enough, for fans and opponents.   I think it takes him seriously, at his word, and is a careful and insightful criticism of him for the most part.

ETA:  I cross posted with you, Michael.   I've seen lots of stuff from biologists on the lobster example as well, will check this out.   In general though I think too much is made of that example by his critics, I took Peterson's point about hierarchies to be much smaller than his detractors generally make it out to be (and obvious and not particularly relevant or insightful).   Personally I don't see him as dangerous, I see him as something of a cultural flashpoint, and I think there could be much worse people making the case he's making than him.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

What Peterson said that is ringing bells, is that we have to speak out. Friends of mine who think he is a dick says he is right about that one. 
 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

progressive17 wrote:

What Peterson said that is ringing bells, is that we have to speak out. Friends of mine who think he is a dick says he is right about that one. 
 

I honestly don't understand what you mean. Is there a quotation or a video clip that expresses this idea of Peterson's that we have to speak out? Who are the "we", and what does Peterson want us to speak out about?

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Any person in general, apparently from his 12 rules. So I have heard.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

A real iconoclast would have released 13 rules.  12 makes me think of Apostles, or 12-Step programs.  Or the Twelve Commandments.

Mighty Middle

Jordan Peterson is an old family friend of Grant Notley and used double date with daughter Rachel! Now the NDP premier of Alberta

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/01/15/he-says-freedom-they-say...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

He sounds like a confused idiot. I'm sure his views changed at 18 after he read Atlas Shrugged and The Bible. 2 books you are supposed to outgrow by 18.

Cody87

Michael Moriarity wrote:
progressive17 wrote:

What Peterson said that is ringing bells, is that we have to speak out. Friends of mine who think he is a dick says he is right about that one.

I honestly don't understand what you mean. Is there a quotation or a video clip that expresses this idea of Peterson's that we have to speak out? Who are the "we", and what does Peterson want us to speak out about?

I'm pretty sure the exact quote is: "When you have something to say, silence is a lie." I don't think the spirit of the quote is originally his, but then, little that he says is.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Cody87 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the exact quote is: "When you have something to say, silence is a lie." I don't think the spirit of the quote is originally his, but then, little that he says is.

Thanks, that makes it somewhat clearer. This looks typically Petersonian to me, in that it grossly oversimplifies a very complex social problem which we all face, every day of our lives. If you agree with the Marxist analysis of capitalism, should you debate your employer about it and risk losing your job? There are lesser examples of the same type of self censorship regarding all sorts of everyday matters as well. It's part of being a properly socialized human being with the capacity to exist in society without causing too much discord.

To say that one should ignore these considerations in preference to always speaking your own truth, regardless of the consequences, is the sort of shallow thinking that surprises me in a professor of psychology, but if does seem typical of Peterson's absolutist views on all sorts of issues.

Cody87

Mobo2000 wrote:
Personally I don't see him as dangerous, I see him as something of a cultural flashpoint, and I think there could be much worse people making the case he's making than him.

I generally agree with most of what you say, but I'll have to respectfully disagree here:

The fact that he doesn't come across as dangerous is exactly why he is so dangerous. Ideologically, he's a match with the likes of Milo Yiannopolous, Paul Joseph Watson, or Stefan Molyneux. But unlike those three, who are pretty transparently disingenuous, angry, and terrible people who take half-truths and twist them to their malevolent agendas, pandering to scared and angry people, Peterson manages to advance those same ideas from a seemingly benevolent position to a much wider audience. Which goes back to your last point - people have already been trying to make the case he's been making, he's just making it better and his reach is growing exponentially - he's already more well-known than those other three combined.

The actual white nationalist portions of the alt-right are fighting a civil war over Peterson right now. They all basically agree that he's not one of them (white nationalist), but some within that community celebrate him as a kind of "gateway" to the alt-right - because he's getting people to accept arguments that are prerequisites to white nationalist canon (such as: Peterson talks about the relevance of IQ and personality on life outcomes, and the heritability of such, in the context of individual differences, then the alt-right has an "in" to talk about those same differences at the group level).

And on top of the above, his true intentions and motivations are not just unclear, but as a result of his exceptional self-control, they will remain unknowable because his entire character is a carefully controlled facade. Proof of this can be shown without a doubt when he talks about past interviews he's done. Even when he's furious (according to him, later) he doesn't show it. He's already said he's not running for politics (paraphrasing here) "because it's more effective for him to influence society through his current platforms than through politics." In other words, his goal is to reshape society to a greater degree than he could as a potential premier or prime minister. And when it comes down to it, we don't know a damn thing about what he actually thinks or believes, just what he wants us to think he believes.

To top all that off, many of his supporters literally worship him like he's the second coming of Christ, and I'm not exaggerating. They are just waiting for the word and they'll do whatever he says - and he knows it.

He's dangerous.

SocialJustice101

Jordan Peterson is Mr. Filibuster.   He rambles on and on in an attempt to seem relatable as a right-winger, and apparently that's considered "genuis" in right-wing circles.     He really got a break from that British journalist who was just a bad debater.    The issue wasn't about "offending" trans people.   It's about basic respect in a supposedly professional environment, be it a workplace or a University.  You call people what they want to be called, not necessarily how you see them.   Imagine calling your co-worker/boss "Fat-face" because that's how you see them and you think that's your freedom of speech.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You call people what they want to be called

I want to be called Supreme Leader.

Is not referring to me as such really the same as calling me "Fat-face"?

Even Peterson has said he has no problem referring to a trans-man as "he" or a trans-woman as "she".  It's the 107 other new "genders" that have magically popped up in the last ten years that are at issue (108 if you add "Supreme Leader" -- and why not??  Is my reality worth less???!!). 

And if you want to critque his dishonesties honestly, at least recognize what he is and isn't saying.

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo, if you run a company, you could give yourself a "Supreme Leader" title if you wanted to, and you could expect your employees to refer to you as such, if anyone would want to work for you, that is.

For trans people, being called the opposite gender is understandably disrepectful.   It's a very reasonable expectation at any workplace or a public institution.

Freedom of speech means you can not be arrested for your speech.   But people do get fired for their speech all the time, whether it's a private or a public job.

The only time I hear about multiple new genders is in the right-wing media.   It's possible that somebody used such terminilogy to categorize the gender spectrum, but I don't see any employers, public or private, requiring anyone to understand multiple genders.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Mr. Magoo, if you run a company, you could give yourself a "Supreme Leader" title if you wanted to, and you could expect your employees to refer to you as such, if anyone would want to work for you, that is.

Sure.  But if I'm a student taking a university course, could I expect the same from my prof?

Quote:
For trans people, being called the opposite gender is understandably disrepectful.   It's a very reasonable expectation at any workplace or a public institution.

Like I said, even Peterson is OK with that, and he's said so.

But there seems to be some confusion about what "trans" means (someone born "male" -- or CAMAB, to use the jargon -- who transitions to female, or vice versa) and what it means to have no gender, a fluid gender, random gender, and so on, and all the special and necessary pronouns and figures of speech that accompany that.

Again, if you were born with a peen but believe you're a woman, even this terrible man will refer to you as "she".  His point is that there's no such word as "Xe".

Quote:
The only time I hear about multiple new genders is in the right-wing media.

Check out Reddit some time.

Quote:
I don't see any employers, public or private, requiring anyone to understand multiple genders.

So either "he" or "she" should be fine, so long as it matches with someone's gender presentation?  That's great to hear, but that's not what Peterson is talking about.

 

SocialJustice101

I've never heard anyone use the word "xe" outside of the internet, but if one of my co-workers or clients would want me to refer to them as such, I would be okay with it and would not make a scene out of it.   Whatever floats your boat.  If somebody makes an issue out of something like that, they should not be working with people. 

SocialJustice101

If new words, such as "xe", are the biggest issues in your life, then you need a new life.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If somebody makes an issue out of something like that, they should not be working with people.

OK.  But you forgot to address me as "Supreme Leader".  Just sayin'.

Quote:
If new words, such as "xe", are the biggest issues in your life, then you need a new life.

Neither "supreme" nor "leader" are even new words, but you seem unable or unwilling to address me as such, even after I made my feelings clear.

SocialJustice101

Are you equating transgender people with a person who wants to be called "Supreme Leader"?    

SocialJustice101

If a gay couple with a kid insist on being considered a family by airport employees, are they also being crazy just like a person who wants to be called "Supreme Leader"?

SocialJustice101

Transgender discrimination is now against the law, can't say the same about living out your craziest fantasies to be called "Captain Proton" or whatever.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Are you equating transgender people with a person who wants to be called "Supreme Leader"?  

Tell us the difference.  I'm not talking (just as Peterson is not talking) about so-called women becoming so-called men.  He, and I, are talking about all the other genders.  If you really believe that there's some meaningful difference between expecting to be called "Xe" and expecting to be called "Supreme Leader" then please, walk us all through it.  Be thorough and be clear.

Quote:
If a gay couple with a kid insist on being considered a family by airport employees, are they also being crazy just like a person who wants to be called "Supreme Leader"?

What's the crazy part?  Aren't we all whatever we want to feel we are?

More importantly, didn't you say "You call people what they want to be called"?

But now you seem to think maybe there should be some common-sense limits to this?

Quote:
Transgender discrimination is now against the law

The prefix "trans" literally assumes there are two sides.  It basically means "across", from one side to the other.  Not from one point to one of many other points.  Seriously.  Look it up.

Similarly, isn't the "B" in LGBTQQ stand for "Bi"sexual?  Huh.  Bi still means "two", yes?  So what's that shit all about then?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I hadn't noticed the similarity between the debating styles of Peterson and our own Magoo until just now. Congrats, Magoo, you are now a Jordan Peterson workalike.

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo, the law is against discrimination based on gender-identity and expression, whatever it might be.  It's not just for MtF and FtM people.

There are numerous hermophrodite species in nature which do not conform to ether male or female gender.   Earth worms are a good example.   They all typically possess both male and female organs.   It's only reasonable to assume that some humans also do not conform to either gender.   If they want to be called "xe", their wishes should be respected. 

Obviously there are limits, just like in any other case.   You call people by their name and their preferred gender prounon, if it ever comes up.       It's a completely reasonable accomodation which takes little effort.   Calling somebody "Supreme Leader" does not sound like a reasonable request, unless it's their actual title.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I hadn't noticed the similarity between the debating styles of Peterson and our own Magoo until just now.

Then what were all the other snide insults for?? [confused]

Quote:
There are numerous hermophrodite species in nature which do not conform to ether male or female gender.   Earth worms are a good example.

And do we know this by:

a)  looking at their observable physiology?

b) asking them how they "feel"?

Quote:
Obviously there are limits, just like in any other case.

Can you tell us more about those obvious limits?  Because I feel like maybe you and Peterson only disagree on where the limits should be.

 

SocialJustice101

Mr Magoo, my point was that there those who are neither male nor female.   That's the reality, not a crazy fantasy, like being "Captain Proton" or a "Supreme Leader." Bodies don't always match up with brain chemistry.  

The limits are set out in law and in govenrment regulations.   The gender neutral prounoun must be used if specifically requested.    If Peterson does not want to follow the Ontario Human Rights Act in his position as a professor at a public University, he's absolutely free to pursue other activities.   

Cody87

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Obviously there are limits, just like in any other case.  

What are those limits, and who decides where they are? How do the rest of us know what the limits are? Are they instantiated in the law, or do you have to find out only after you're in some degree of legal trouble?

Cody87

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Mr Magoo, my point was that there those who are neither male nor female.   That's the reality, not a crazy fantasy, like being "Captain Proton" or a "Supreme Leader." Bodies don't always match up with brain chemistry.  

The limits are set out in law and in govenrment regulations.   The gender neutral prounoun must be used if specifically requested.    If Peterson does not want to follow the Ontario Human Rights Act in his position as a professor at a public University, he's absolutely free to pursue other activities.   

So, why is "Captain Proton" a crazy fantasy but not "Apconsugender"?

EDIT: I got Apconsugender by picking at random one of the early entries from this list.

I then looked lower and found, among others, "Glassgender: a gender that is very sensitive and fragile"

...I can't tell if this list is satire or not.

SocialJustice101

Gender identity is real and should be respected.   That's already been debated and voted on federally and in multiple provinces.

Pages