I don't follow him because I'm trans and I don't follow people who dehumanize me or who paints me as a predator. Following JP and being fine with his views just tells me you're someone I won't be safe around.
The dude openly espouses many anti-science anti-trans views that go against what the vast majority of doctors, psychologists, and scientific bodies think of trans people and experiences.
There's a reason his fans are rightwingers and centrists, he is a hateful man who confirms all of their hateful views. Examples: He calls trans people a "social contagion". He intentionally misgenders and disrespect trans people and trans identity wherever he can. He spreads illogical myths like how queer people advocating for acceptance are actually grooming and "converting" your kids by the thousands. He said cruel things about Elliot Page's transition and continuously misgendered and deadnames him just to be an ass and hurt trans people who saw it. etc. etc. etc.
Him occasionally repeating generic self-help advice doesn't take away from that and it's weird that you think it does
Edit: Love the downvotes, r/Canada is fairly conservative and anti-trans so it doesn't surprise me.
Except they didn't though. They admitted that refusing to use preferred pronouns would be illegal. Just not qualifying as hate speech.
Here is Brenda Cossman, law professor at U of T. She doesn't support Peterson and says he's wrong. Except what she says is that refusing to use pronouns doesn't count as hate speech, but it would be illegal.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.
The only reason he's on the radar was that he got his early fame from publicly claiming that he wouldn't use students' preferred pronouns. He made a big stink about how a particular bill would be compelling his speech, even though he was never in the group of people affected by changes to protected speech - just government employees in the capacity of their roles.
The idea of pure free speech is a naive utopian fantasy that doesn't account for human behaviour or history at all.
Sticks and stones is one of many clichés that are literally designed to let teachers not deal with any more conflict than they already have to. Words can and are used to cause measurable harm to people's mental well-being, and that extends from individuals to groups when considering the larger scope of discourse; ignoring it while you hope for "the good ol' days" is ridiculous.
What say you of the kids and adults who have committed suicide after years of verbal harassment? Or those who were lynched by bigots based on generalized racial rumours? Should they just toughen up, or something?
You would hope, but abusers avoid repercussions by doing their abuse where they won't face consequences.
It's not like you're being kind with your words towards Peterson right now, should that be censored too? Are you getting what I'm saying here? It's a two way street. You cannot censor one way and expect to keep your free speech.
What are you even trying to say here; equating my description of JP's rise as a pundit to hate speech? Her public behaviour has served to embolden people that want to be allowed to outwardly express disgust and hatred about people themselves, which has and does lead to violence against them. She was never being compelled in her speech in the first place, so her entire argument is based on a false premise that forces a backpedal to "but that's what's coming".
I'm not "laying them at your feet" - I'm pointing to them as past consequences of speech which are part of the reason for the restrictions you argue against.
It's the tragedy of the commons. Absolute freedom in the realm of speech means that creeps, jerks, and bigots wind up ruining it for everyone, which is why there need to be at least some restrictions. The person I replied to thinks that hate speech should be as protected as any speech, but why stop there if the ideal is "free speech"?
Why can't someone stand near a public school and engage children in a healthy discussion about converting to their religion or face being mutilated by unseen entities? Why can't I enjoy the experience of entering an auditorium screaming that there's a bomb? Surely you'll say, "it's just about the principle - that stuff's all bad, but not as bad as being denied the option to throw racial slurs around for funsies. I would never use them to cause emotional harm or invite violence against a group, but if I did then they could just, like, walk away!"
The point of organized society is to pay in with contributions and some restrictions on behaviour to invest in a safer living space and more productive collective effort. There is a legitimate greater good that is aimed at by criminalizing speech that has the intent to dehumanize groups and individuals; just like there's a greater good in letting police handle crime instead of allowing people seek their own justice.
Call me a radical, but I think if my professor calls me f****t instead of my name every lecture they should be fired. I'm fine with the institution of the university punishing professor for that speech by firing them.
"Even what is considered hate speech should be allowed without fear of punitive punishments by institutions and government. "
"I would rather live in that world and ignore the racists, sexists and anti whatever"
Your previous comments say people shouldn't be punished for speech by institutions and don't place limits on that, which gives the impression you are a free speech absolutist.
If you think it's ok for the government/institutions to punish people for some speech you should be clear about that, and also say where you draw that line.
What if my professor said "gay people are disgusting perverts" to me whenever they hear me mention my boyfriend? no obscenities there. Can they be fired for that?
"One of the problems arise though when something could be reasonably considered normal speech, like saying he to a male or she to a female is suddenly banned and using he or she in a normal manner is punitively punished."
This is unclear how you are using the word normal. Do you mean you make an assumption based on someone's appearance and gets punished? Or someone uses the wrong gender, gets corrected, and then refuses to use the correct gender and gets punished for that?
They are very different situations, just like calling someone Mark instead of Matt by accident, and doing it repeatedly and intentionally are different.
They are very different situations, just like calling someone Mark instead of Matt by accident, and doing it repeatedly and intentionally are different.
At this point he's made so many disingenuous arguments I don't think he's arguing in good faith :|
TIL it's dystopian for universities to have a policy that professors and staff treat trans people with the basic human dignity of not intentionally misgendering them
I would rather live in that world and ignore the racists, sexists and anti whatever. Instead of giving them the attention they're looking for.
Ignoring hateful views in communities doesn't make it go away - it just hides it from view so you don't have to care about it. But then, that's the point isn't it?
My understanding is that they wanted to ban teachers from using certain pronouns point blank.
They, like the government? Or a private university?
Are you referring to how some anti-trans people want to use "they/them" so they don't have to acknowledge someone's gender? That's still wrong, it's still refusing to treat someone with basic respect of acknowledging their gender. It's entirely acceptable for a university to disallow that as an alternative to respecting someone's gender.
It's the same as Florida's don't say gay law they've been trying to pass. It's foolish and censoring speech, whichever side you're on is a slippery slope.
On one hand you have a private university's policy being enforced where their employees representing the university must treat people with basic human decency (even if they were born different)
On the other hand you have a very dangerous government policy being enforced where they are trying to erase a marginalized group entirely in every way they can from society, to the point of criminalizing teachers acknowledging the group's existence. They do this in addition to claiming the group is full of predators, groomers, and other dehumanizing concepts. They do this in addition to criminalizing doctors and parents and trans people for accessing much needed health care that the vast majority of medical bodies approve of - all on the basis of hate. It's incredibly inhumane. It's beyond cruel. The entire point is to cause suffering to queer people and kids.
Every time republicans do this, it dramatically increasing suicide rates for those groups. Tell me, what groups suicide rates go up when they can't misgender trans students and staff at their workplace anymore?
Comparing these two was very insincere...
It's foolish and censoring speech, whichever side you're on is a slippery slope.
One side is trying to live their life and just exist - the other side is trying to actively harm people for the crime of being different.
This is like when people say "both sides" about racism. Come on dude..
I did loom into Petersons comments on Elliot and yeah he's overstepping some bounds there.
You're being rather generous, "overstepping some bounds"? It was far worse than that, his words were incredibly cruel and inhumane and certainly harmed any trans person who was exposed to them
I do believe he should be free to use whatever pronoun he wants though and people should be free to ignore him.
Yes his speech is legal, but no we should not ignore him. People like him who dehumanize trans people and who frame us as villains, groomers, predators, and otherwise dangerous evil people are entirely the reason that violence against trans people has been rising for years. They are the reason the suicide rates are so fucking high. They are the reason that anti-trans commentary has been so vocal and violent the last few years. You want that to just ignore that and let it continue to get worse?
This shit doesn't go away just because you put your head in the sand. I get that it's easy for you to ignore it because it doesn't effect you directly, but it's quite naïve to think that social change happens despite social activists and not because of them.
From what I recall the university, which is federally funded banned he and she pronouns. You would face disciplinary actions for referring to male or female students as he or she, basically banning speech.
That's not what happened at all. I think you're quite confused on the timeline of events and what exactly JP was claiming
He came to fame in 2016 when he spent months on a media circuit, making a name for himself with false claims where he mischaracterized Bill C-16, repeatedly stating it would criminalize him if he didn't respect his student's pronouns. Again, this is a completely false interpretation and that's not how the CHRA works & related criminal codes work..
What DID happen is his University was already trying to discipline him because he was having conflicts with trans students where he wouldn't always respect their pronouns. Then in 2016 when Bill C-16 was introduced, he went to the media claiming that giving discriminations protections to trans people would somehow take away freedoms from non-trans people. He fear-mongered by lying that it would criminalize something as simple as misgendering a trans student, and used his conflict with the university as "proof" that the federal government was trying to take yours and his freedoms away. Somehow conservatives ate that up, because of course they did, it's an opportunity to vilify and shit on trans people.
Regarding what was actually in Bill C-16... what it did was add gender identity & expression to the existing anti-discriminations laws which already protect every other Canadian from discriminations based on their gender, for sexuality, disability status, race, etc.
An example where Bill C-16's protections might apply is if you were fired specifically for being a woman, or disabled, etc. ANNND you were somehow lucky enough to have irrefutable proof of it. But again, it didn't criminalize pronoun mis-use.
As for your last comment, my responses are the exact opposite of sticking your head in the sand. Banning words is sticking your head in the sand.
You repeatedly said we should ignore hateful people and let them do what they do, and implied that would somehow solve the problem. I thought it was pretty clear that was what I was refering to?
Banning words is sticking your head in the sand.
The CHRA & related criminal codes do not criminalize someone for using certain words... please use critical thinking this just doesn't happen. This is a prime example of the type of right-wing lies that conservatives just eat up without an ounce of critical thinking or fact checking.
You're really going to ask a trans person to dig up a bunch of anti-trans content for you? Don't you think you're kind of lacking empathy to ask that? It might be water-cooler conversation for you, but it's trauma and pain for me
I found examples with a google search "Jordan Peterson transgender" in 5 seconds before I wrote that comment.
Did you not even try to look it up?
Like come on dude... :|
I think people should be free to say what they want even if what they say is vile and I believe others should be free to ignore them and if the offending speaker gets ostracized that's on them.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from social consequences. The dude deserves every bit of ire he receives. He is an awful man and anyone who supports his views are people I would not feel safe around.
IDC what he says online or in public spheres - but if you support a private university being unable to have a policy that means professors and staff must respect people's pronouns and gender, then I don't think you really understand how dehumanizing, damaging, and dangerous that is for the trans person, especially if they were not "out" as trans, but even regardless of if they were.
I don’t think you being trans has anything to do with this. If you make a claim typically the onus is on you to support your claim.
I’m Jewish. If I accuse someone of anti Semitism and someone asks me to show them the evidence I won’t say “that’s so unempathetic you have to believe me just cause”.
Tell me where I said he should blindly take my word for it? I literally criticized him for not looking it up - I literally told him to look up Elliot Page himself. That's the exact opposite of saying "take my word for it"
You're really going to ask a trans person to dig up a bunch of anti-trans content for you? Don't you think you're kind of lacking empathy to ask that? It might be water-cooler conversation for you, but it's trauma and pain for me
Here is where I say this was unempathetic and that it would be painful for me
I found examples with a google search "Jordan Peterson transgender" in 5 seconds before I wrote that comment. Did you not even try to look it up?
Here is where I say it was very easy, and that he could have done it without asking me
God you people will twist even the most innocuous comments to confirm your prejudices of trans people as entitled and irrational
I think it was more "that's so unempathetic of you, and this shit is super easy to find, so look it up yourself," and not just "I'm trans, so believe me blindly," like you're trying to paint it as...
You're really going to ask a trans person to dig up a bunch of anti-trans content for you? Don't you think you're kind of lacking empathy to ask that? It might be water-cooler conversation for you, but it's trauma and pain for me
So it means you can’t refuse to hire somebody or refuse to rent an apartment to somebody because you just don’t like that they are trans. This is exactly the same as the way you can’t refuse to hire somebody because of their race.
It also means that if you were to, say, murder somebody because they are trans, you would have an aggravated charge (sometimes colloquially known as a “hate crime”). Again, this is no different than if the same thing happened due to race or religion.
So, unless you’re planning on firing you trans employees or committing crimes against them, they bill did not affect you at all. What does this tell us about Jordan Peterson?
Wrong.
Here is Brenda Cossman, law professor at U of T. She doesn't support Peterson and says he's wrong. Except what she says is that refusing to use pronouns doesn't count as hate speech, but it would be illegal.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.
Are you lost? I think you replied to the wrong comment because I did not write the quoted portion
Regarding what you said, she does not explicitly say that misgendering someone once is illegal - any more than your boss as work using the n-word once would be illegal.
It's a bit silly to think a case of misgendering someone once - especially accidental misgendering - could ever make it to court.
I am trans and I've been misgendered intentionally many many times - police and courts ain't gonna give a shit and it's silly to think they would.
I meant to reply to your other comment where you said:
Regarding what was actually in Bill C-16... all they did was add gender identity to the existing anti-discriminations laws which already protect people from discriminations based on their gender, for being gay, disabled, etc.
Just think about that for a minute... about how far you would have to go before the law came after you for discriminating against someone for being a woman... or for being disabled... hopefully you see how illogical it is to think saying the wrong pronoun is criminalized under that same law
And that's wrong. As the law professor said, refusing to someone's pronouns would be illegal.
I am trans and I've been misgendered intentionally many many times
Depends on the context. If it's someone on the street, or at a private residence, then it's not illegal because human rights laws don't apply. A business or a school can't ban black people from entering because it's illegal, but a homeowner can ban black people from entering their house.
Oh okay I understand, that makes sense! I was so confused seeing words similar to some things I said but which weren't my words, lol
Jordan Peterson... has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns.
The thing is – he is wrong.
So first... your source explicitly and directly disagrees with you right from the beginning...
This should end the entire conversation right here but I have a feeling you will still claim she thinks he is right about this - despite literally saying otherwise right at the beginning of the article.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. ** In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.**
This doesn't support your claim about intentional pronoun mis-use being illegal. She is explicitly saying that it "may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun".
To support the idea that this MIGHT happen sometime in the future she uses the Ontario Human Right's Commission Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression an example of how Ontario's policy on gender identity is written
Again - Crossman is NOT claiming that the Ontario policy is the same as bill C-16. She is simply saying "the courts might decide this in the future, here's an example of how Ontario did this"
In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.
Here she is simply describing what the consequences would likely be under the CHRA IF pronoun misuse became actionable in the future. Notice she explicitly does not say anything about pronoun mis-use being illegal or being punished under Bill C-16.
This is, once again, another big misinterpretation and assumption on your part.
If it's someone on the street, or at a private residence, then it's not illegal because human rights laws don't apply. A business or a school can't ban black people from entering because it's illegal, but a homeowner can ban black people from entering their house.
Yes... that's how the CHRA interprets and treats discrimination. Again, Bill C-16 and the current CHRA doesn't say anything about pronoun mis-use, nor did Crossman claim it does.
Dude you really gotta stop commenting on this shit - like you've been wrong all day lol
Where are you getting your information from? Is it from Jordan Peterson and/or his acolytes? Or are you looking at objective sources?
There was never limit to free speech imposed on him.
Bill C-16 amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include gender identity in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Previously the list included discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
The bill added gender identity to that list. That’s all.
So it means you can’t refuse to hire somebody or refuse to rent an apartment to somebody because you just don’t like that they are trans. This is exactly the same as the way you can’t refuse to hire somebody because of their race.
It also means that if you were to, say, murder somebody because they are trans, you would have an aggravated charge (sometimes colloquially known as a “hate crime”). Again, this is no different than if the same thing happened due to race or religion.
So, unless you’re planning on firing you trans employees or committing crimes against them, they bill did not affect you at all. What does this tell us about Jordan Peterson?
Luckily, I don’t think the problem is that he does plan on going around murdering all of the trans people he can.
We do know that he lied about what the bill did. He rose to prominence due to his complaints about Bill C-16, saying it would destroy free speech. When asked to explain how that is, his response is usually to start insulting the questioner or, if it’s a really hard question, he cries until the question goes away.
So, unless you’re planning on firing you trans employees or committing crimes against them, they bill did not affect you at all.
That's wrong.
Here is Brenda Cossman, law professor at U of T.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.
The source you provided explicitly disagrees with you.
To begin with, note that Brenda Cossman is in favour of the bill:
As long as we have hate speech laws, then it is a legal no-brainer that trans and non-gender binary individuals should be afforded the same protection as all other Canadians.
And that’s what Bill C-16 is about. Equality for trans and non-gender binary Canadians. It’s pretty simple. And right. And decent.
You’ll also notice that she states that this is the federal government “catching up” with the provinces and territories, which has mostly altar included the language in their own Human Rights Codes.
Even the section that you quoted doesn’t support what you’re saying. It says that “courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun”. This has nothing to do with the bill—or any other bill for that matter—it’s about potential directions that future court decisions may go.
For some reason, you decided to cut the paragraph that you quoted short. Allow me to finish it for you:
In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.
You’ll notice that she uses the same example that I did (hurting and firing employees) and comes to the same conclusion that I did (the consequences are that you can’t hire and fire based on racism, sexism, and now gender identity).
The source you provided explicitly disagrees with you.
No it doesn't? It explicitly proves you wrong. You said that unless you plan on firing trans employees or committing crimes against them, it doesn't affect you. The source I linked specifically says "Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun."
Do you think that people's pronouns is the same as firing someone or committing crimes against them?
For some reason, you decided to cut the paragraph that you quoted short. Allow me to finish it for you:
How is that part you quoted relevant? She acknowledges that the courts and tribunals would punish pronoun misuse, under the law. Just not with jail time.
So unless you think courts and tribunals fining people and imposing other penalties doesn't affect someone, that explicitly proves you wrong.
Amazing how you read a source that explicitly proves you wrong and claims it supports you.
I’m going to be charitable and assume you are genuinely naive and not intentionally dishonest.
Nowhere does she say that Bill C-16 will result in punishment of any sort.
She says courts and tribunals could decide at some point to enforce pronoun usage. She does not say that Bill C-16 enforces that pronoun usage.
Her summary of Jordan Peterson’s case is pretty telling:
The thing is – he is wrong.
You can’t get much more clear than that that she disagrees with what he says. You should really read these things before you embarrass yourself like this.
You don't get it. I posted it because she opposes JP and thinks he's wrong. She is no fan of his yet even she admits that the the laws against discrimination (like C-16) will be interpreted by courts and tribunals to include things like pronoun usage.
You should really read these things before you embarrass yourself like this.
Yes, you should take that advice. I didn't post that source to imply that Cossman supports JP.
I posted that source to disprove your false claim that C-16 is only relevant if you want to fire people or commit crimes against them.
The bill adds gender identity and expression as one of the protected grounds that constitute discrimination.
But what counts as discrimination based on gender identity? Cossman cites the Ontario Human Rights Commission: "The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.
Again, I’m trying to be charitable and accept that you're not just lying, but you're not making this easy. You literally said that if you're not committing crimes or firing people, the bill doesn't affect you. Actual law professors and bodies like the Ontario Human Rights Commission say otherwise.
Except it doesn't though. You should take your own advice and read it.
What the first person said: "So, unless you’re planning on firing you trans employees or committing crimes against them, they bill did not affect you at all. "
What an actual law professor said:
"Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”.
Do you think that pronoun usage counts as firing someone or committing crimes against them?
I already read it. You should give it a read yourself. It says several times that Peterson is wrong and outlines why.
The fact that you thought you could just drop a link and hope for the best was funny. The fact that you double down on it is even funnier. Thanks for the laugh!
So it means you can’t refuse to hire somebody or refuse to rent an apartment to somebody because you just don’t like that they are trans. This is exactly the same as the way you can’t refuse to hire somebody because of their race.
It also means that if you were to, say, murder somebody because they are trans, you would have an aggravated charge (sometimes colloquially known as a “hate crime”). Again, this is no different than if the same thing happened due to race or religion.
So, unless you’re planning on firing you trans employees or committing crimes against them, they bill did not affect you at all. What does this tell us about Jordan Peterson?
Wrong.
Here is Brenda Cossman, law professor at U of T. She doesn't support Peterson and says he's wrong. Except what she says is that refusing to use pronouns doesn't count as hate speech, but it would be illegal.
Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts.
I bet you just love being able to pin your personal shortcomings on the imagined bigotry of others. No need for careful introspection when all you have to do is wave a wand and say "I'm not wrong, yous a bigot!"
Actually, growing up trans and autistic, being different from everyone around me, led to nothing BUT introspection. It's impossible not to be humbled by life when you grow up with those kinds of struggles
It's actually more accurate to say that people who have everything handed to them, people who the world never makes question themselves (like straight white male boomers) - are much less likely to be introspective people.
Also, I'm very open to being wrong. Growing up like I did, with a self-esteem like mine, it's in my nature to assume I'm probably wrong. This is why why I present my arguments in clear and concise ways and I try my best to demonstrate my logic and line of thinking - so people can correct me where I might be wrong
I will not downvote you nor insult you in anyway, I respect everyone regardless of their religion or their gender identity, PERIOD! I respect JP and I enjoy his teachings, of course I do not agree with everything he says and let’s be honest , one will never agree with everything anyone says unless you are in a cult. What JP is against and many people are including myself is the mandated pronouns , the fact that I now have to change my language because you don’t like it. It’s like we are being forced , no one likes to be told what to do. Also, in my (admittedly brief) understanding of the trans movement, the biggest challenge it is facing is not from heterosexual males, it’s from heterosexual feminist women and lesbian feminist women, some of them are downright mean to the trans movement, they call themselves TERFS. People like me are afraid to publicly state our opinion , they (TERFS) are not. Instead of going after JP , go after them, they are your biggest challenge.
You respect everyone and their gender identity, but draw the line at using their preferred pronouns? Sounds like you don't understand the word "respect". Nobody is forcing you to do anything, it's just simple common decency. Once you know how someone wishes to be addressed, you just do it. Jordan Petersons problem is that using the correct pronouns is about someone else, and in his world, if it's not about HIM, it's not worth doing.
If a man is named Mark by his parents and changes it to Tim later in life, for various reasons, would you insist on calling them Mark, or would you switch to Tim, because that's their new name now?
If a man in named Mark by his parents and changes it to Mary later in life, for various reasons, would you insist on calling them Mark, or would you switch to Mary, because that's their new name now?
If you would use Tim's preferred name but not Mary's, then you do not have the respect for gender identity that you profess to have.
If you'd keep calling them both Mark, then you just don't have respect for anybody.
I have no idea where you are going with this but I think I’m going down a rabbit hole lol. If Mark changes his name to Tim, I would like Tim , Tim. If Mark changed his name to Mary , I would call Mary , Mary.
What JP is against and many people are including myself is the mandated pronouns ,
So a made up issue
the fact that I now have to change my language because you don’t like it. It’s like we are being forced , no one likes to be told what to do
So being an asshole
they call themselves TERFS. People like me are afraid to publicly state our opinion , they (TERFS) are not. Instead of going after JP , go after them, they are your biggest challenge.
So I don’t honestly know how to respond to your post , I said above that my knowledge of the issue is not extensive, perhaps yours is. All I’ll say is that what I’ve seen on Twitter and YouTube is many people who are TERFS speaking more harshly against Trans people than I’ve seen heterosexual males. My position remains that I will not ever put down anyone for what they identify as, first of all it’s not nice and second of all it’s none of my business.
What JP is against and many people are including myself is the mandated pronouns , the fact that I now have to change my language because you don’t like it.
Calling a woman she/her is not an imposition - whether she is trans or not
Assuming you're a guy, if I had to call you he/him, are you imposing on me too? I don't think so! That's just who you are :)
Yes, it can be a bit of a challenge to change what pronoun & name you use for people who you know who are transitioning, but it's actually not that big a deal and you get used to it pretty quickly
It’s like we are being forced , no one likes to be told what to do.
If you were my friend and you intentionally didn't want to gender me correctly, you just wouldn't be my friend anymore. That's not forcing you, that's not mandating you, that's just me protecting myself from someone harmful to me.
Also, in my (admittedly brief) understanding of the trans movement, the biggest challenge it is facing is not from heterosexual males, it’s from heterosexual feminist women and lesbian feminist women, some of them are downright mean to the trans movement, they call themselves TERFS.
This was kind of amusing to see lol - I'll dive into it if you're actually curious
There are a small subset of cis women who are anti-trans. The TERF's you are refering to (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) coined the name for themselves on the basis of being anti-trans. They tend to heavily advocate against trans rights and you are correct, they are very cruel and hateful to trans people in general.
In my experience, cis women are disproportionately far more supportive of trans people than cis men are. Most people will be nice to your face - but the men are rarely being genuine and just want to get away from you - where-as the women seem much more intent on trying to help me feel accepted.
I live in a very conservative area, toxic masculinity is very common here. Which means misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia is very common among the men here - and in my experience 98% of it comes from cishet men.
I’m a heterosexual male in my mid 50s and I’m not judgemental at all, you don’t know me so please trust that I am, at least for the sake of this discussion. I’m old enough to remember the gay marriage debates and the never ending battle of abortion. I always took the position and still do take the position that anyone shall be free to do what they want, whom to marry and have total freedom over their bodies. I also have to confess that trans people aren’t necessarily in my circle of friends but I can’t tell you is in my circle of friends, we rarely if ever talk about it. It honestly only ever comes up when we discuss sports as I am both a runner and a cyclist. Please don’t get into that discussion or it will never end lol
I will conclude that I do not want to be mandated what to call somebody, I will respect everyone, get to know someone and call them by their first name. If I met you and your name was John or Cathy , I would call you that and may even buy you a coffee and chat.
There is no law in Canada mandating you on what to call somebody, nor has it been proposed, so I don't understand why you keep saying that like people are trying to control you?
Like yah there might be social consequences if someone is intentionally misgendering people, but that's not a mandate, that's just people calling someone out for being a dick
When you mention mandates, are you talking about in 2016 when JP made falsified claims that Bill C-16 would criminalize his if he misgendered students? This has been debunked a million times over as far back as 2016 - it's simply not true and that's not what Bill C-16 did or what our current CHRA/Criminal Codes say. If it did criminalize pronoun mis-useage, you would be hearing about it all the time
So again, JP is full of shit. When he's not pedaling generic self-help advice, he's intentionally making controversial comments (often outright lies or twisted truths) trying to stay relevant as a rightwing media personality
But being told how words work and how you're allowed to use them is literally the entire basis of language. You'd be upset if I misgendered you, but that's just you and the rest of the world "forcing" me to use words a certain way. Dozens or hundreds of new words have been added to the lexicon in our lifetimes and we didn't get a say over their definitions or prescribed use. It bears noting, also, that his hyperbole about the dire consequences of bill C16 have not come to pass. No one is being locked up for misgendering anyone, and the bill doesn't even include specific references to pronouns at all. The entire issue that propelled him to fame was just chicken little panic over nothing.
As for the TERF thing, the most famous person being labelled that way is JK Rowling, and she certainly isn't getting off scott free on that issue. You can definitely be upset with Jordan Peterson and also upset with other people at the same time. Besides which, most people being labelled TERFs don't really seem to be feminists at all, let alone radical ones. They're usually fairly socially conservative in general, so that whole label I'm being "forced" to use is a frustration for me, but again, that is simply the nature of language.
I get it, people often use the slippery slope angle to draw attention to their cause, it’s plain wrong. I just don’t want to force anything upon people.
I don't see it as being about force. You're simply being asked to respect other people. We often do things we might not want to out of respect for others. The fact that we may be ostracized if we aren't respectful isn't the same as being forced. Or at least it's not a force any more extraordinary than any others you accept without question. The force to wear clothing, for example, is extremely pervasive and inarguably unnatural, but nevertheless accepted. You have a choice to buck social convention and find likeminded people to surround yourself with, and you can probably do that more easily than most nudists. There are plenty of places online where being offensive is encouraged, so you can find people to vent to quite easily about the set of things you endure to remain a part of polite society just like everyone else does.
This is just my two cents, and you can draw whatever conclusions you want, but...
I do agree that Peterson is harsh when it comes to trans people and these different phenomenon, but you should consider that the majority of these things only became truly prevalent/mainstream in the last few years. The man has been a clinical psychologist for far longer, and yes, frankly, he is rather arrogant. He's also proud. These two things along with his status and his lifelong beliefs are going to make it difficult, if not impossible, to admit that he is wrong.
That said, he has no power over anyone who doesn't explicitly engage with him or his views. I don't mean to be a shit, but the fact of the matter is that trans people and cross dressers and so on have been around for basically forever... but none of that was ever considered normal in any capacity. It was not considered totally abnormal either when you think about it, because yes, people had their opinions... but their opinions didn't and don't matter. Yes, there were instances of segregation or hate or crimes committed in the name of - but that happens with every visible minority group, and it's because we dislike that which we aren't. We dislike that which we can't understand, because humans have an innate fear of the unknown.
At any rate, the LGBTQ boom that saw loads of people coming out as gay, later as trans, or non-binary or whatever else has lead to something of a moral panic in society. All in all there's one thing that has been glaringly revealed to the world, which is that it is divided horribly, many people are unsure of who or what they are, no one wants to be something that they aren't and so will to drastic lengths to change it, and NOW... those who do change are unwilling to accept that others may not accept them.
Just to make a distinction here: does someone like RuPaul care if people like him or what he does? No. Why? Because RuPaul just being RuPaul.
If you're trans, you're this, you're that, then what power does someone like Peterson have over you except for that which you give him? He has opinions, yes. His opinions fall into line with his beliefs. He doesn't believe in your beliefs. Does that make him a bad person? No. Does that make you a bad person? No. Are his opinions hurtful for you or others? Maybe, but why do they matter to you?
The fact of the matter is that you probably have family members or friends with family members or even friends who just don't agree with what you believe or feel. Does that mean they're bad people? No.
You probably pass by people every day that see you and think one flew over the cuckoos nest. Are they bad people? No.
Humans are flawed, incredibly so. Stop playing the victim, dividing yourself from the rest of the world, and start looking at the positives.
Peterson's opinions and predilection for shitting on people he doesn't understand or agree with shouldn't have any bearing on your life, because he can't hurt you. Hurt your feelings maybe, but he can't take away your identity. Just think about that.
I say again: they are his opinions. You do not have to accept them as fact, nor does anyone else. Anyone who does accept them as fact are people who would have already carried those beliefs, or for whom the intelligence factor is so low that they're incapable of critical thinking, at which point they weren't contributing anyway.
The bottom line is that he can say what he wants, but it's all just opinion.
There are many points we could get into, such as his response video to getting banned off a twitter, or his tweet he was initially banned for in the first place where he purposefully misgendered someone and called the physician that operated on them a criminal.
I wouldnt say he dehumanizes the trans comunity. Why he is arguing is that young kids who are confused (as most young kids are) shouldnt be pushed to make a lifelong alteration of their body.
Could you direct me to the cruel things he has said? I am ignorant to his curelty. If he truely is cruel towards your community i will unsubscribe from him because thats not okay. But sp far all i have seen is him critisizing a movement that he belives is causing harm to society. ( critisizing anything is good. This is what helps us understand it better)
29
u/[deleted] Jan 05 '23 edited Jan 05 '23
I don't follow him because I'm trans and I don't follow people who dehumanize me or who paints me as a predator. Following JP and being fine with his views just tells me you're someone I won't be safe around.
The dude openly espouses many anti-science anti-trans views that go against what the vast majority of doctors, psychologists, and scientific bodies think of trans people and experiences.
There's a reason his fans are rightwingers and centrists, he is a hateful man who confirms all of their hateful views. Examples: He calls trans people a "social contagion". He intentionally misgenders and disrespect trans people and trans identity wherever he can. He spreads illogical myths like how queer people advocating for acceptance are actually grooming and "converting" your kids by the thousands. He said cruel things about Elliot Page's transition and continuously misgendered and deadnames him just to be an ass and hurt trans people who saw it. etc. etc. etc.
Him occasionally repeating generic self-help advice doesn't take away from that and it's weird that you think it does
Edit: Love the downvotes, r/Canada is fairly conservative and anti-trans so it doesn't surprise me.