Gender Roles & Identity in contemporary society

[Aximili86]

Pretty much. Anyone who thinks Peterson's some hardcore right-winger and not just out there promoting regular-common-sense-"Dad"isms that were considered middle-of-the-road reasonable up until about a decade ago, something's gone pretty wrong somewhere in their development. It's all knee-jerk hysteria at a certain point.

I don't even particularly like that dude, he comes off pretty smug, but none of those encounters-with-students-at-speeches all over Youtube contain that guy saying anything out-there. Even with all the transgender stuff he gets so much heat over, his positon seems to be "I respect anyone's right to identify as whatever they want, more power to them, all good. Just don't legally mandate me to use the pronoun myself. I'll just address them by their name instead."

Which, hey, holy ****, a sane middle-ground. Respectful without personally agreeing with it. The horror, what an evil dude.

Like, even in Canada nobody would have batted an eyelid about that guy even in 2008 or whatever. It's not surprising there's a following there, he's not any more "right wing" than a Joe Rogan or whoever. ie. Basically not "right wing" at all, just moreso than a 19 year old Yale kid. Which is pretty much 90% of society.

 

[jmc]

What baffles me the most is why people are outraged at some pretty mundane things that he and others have said. It boggles my mind that some pretty 'no **** Sherlock' stuff has cause such ridiculous accusations. I honestly don't know what it says about the online crazies when common sense is being treated like it's blasphemy.

 

[Aximili86]

Jim Jefferies was pretty level-headed about the Peterson stuff when he did a segment on it, maybe 6 months ago too. Pointing out that as soon as you're blaring sirens at someone to silence them, you've pretty much forfeit any discourse, you've lost. I'm sure Jefferies doesn't agree with Peterson on much at all, but that's sort of the point, even that guy sees how ridiculous it's gotten. Debate the guy, counter-speech, don't throw a tantrum & start sounding white noise and/or sirens.

Then he (Jefferies) did the siren thing at the woke college kid protesting Peterson while she was mid-sentence, and she gets all indignant sending him a dirty look like he's being an a**hole. Delicious.

 

[jmc]

I've seen that type of footage of people protesting like that, not letting the person speak. It's not about having a discussion, it's about control. When people want to force their ideas on to everyone else they will do anything but debate those ideas, because they're scared to lose. They'll try to dress it up as taking the moral high ground or something, but the reality is the more noise they can make, the less that have to deal with the possibility they may be wrong. It's very hard for people to genuinely challenge their own world view, partly because of ego, partly because they fear being ostracised from their group, it's far easier to narrow your perspective and stay within a safe environment than face an obstacle that throws into question your belief system. We're social creators by nature, and are more often than not willing to make compromises for the sake of remaining part of the tribe.

 

[Donner]

Pretty much. Anyone who thinks Peterson's some hardcore right-winger and not just out there promoting regular-common-sense-"Dad"isms that were considered middle-of-the-road reasonable up until about a decade ago, something's gone pretty wrong somewhere in their development. It's all knee-jerk hysteria at a certain point.

I don't even particularly like that dude, he comes off pretty smug, but none of those encounters-with-students-at-speeches all over Youtube contain that guy saying anything out-there. Even with all the transgender stuff he gets so much heat over, his positon seems to be "I respect anyone's right to identify as whatever they want, more power to them, all good. Just don't legally mandate me to use the pronoun myself. I'll just address them by their name instead."

Which, hey, holy ****, a sane middle-ground. Respectful without personally agreeing with it. The horror, what an evil dude.

Like, even in Canada nobody would have batted an eyelid about that guy even in 2008 or whatever. It's not surprising there's a following there, he's not any more "right wing" than a Joe Rogan or whoever. ie. Basically not "right wing" at all, just moreso than a 19 year old Yale kid. Which is pretty much 90% of society.

You sound like someone who doesn't know **** about Jordan Peterson, but wants to defend him because it would piss off the left.

He's a favourite of young, angry white men for a reason.

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

 

[Mani-Man]

If you dont look for anything with Peterson and truly listen to what he says without being prepared to fight any kind of opinion, you see that he just throws dirt at the wall waiting for a fly to land so he can play his little game.
He baits you into a direction that he is comfortable with, if you take this away then Peterson is just a guy who struggles with getting any point across.

 

[Aximili86]

I've only seen maybe a half-dozen of the Youtube videos regarding the guy, yeah, so haven't done a deep-dive into his psychological career.

But that doesn't seem to be the stuff he's confronted on in these campus videos. It's pretty much irrational freakout "you don't think transgender is a thing! You believe Canada's law reigning in anything deemed as 'hate speech' is an overstep, what a ****ing literal Nazi! Eat bullhorn!".

His whole position on the transgender thing just seems to be "I respect you, live your life as you please, no skin off my back - just don't try to fine me for not referring to you as 'zhe'. I'll just choose to address you by your first name instead, bystep the pronoun as I think it's pretty silly". Which is totally goddamn reasonable and the majority of western society is going to agree with him on, male and female alike.

Like, middle-aged Democratic voters, the Bubba Clinton era types. Not just hardcore Richard Spencer crazies. The only people taking issue with a position like that are going to be the up-in-arms 19 year old revolutionaries, the usual suspects pushing for legalized-everything, who believe the Israeli flag is the same thing as the ISIS flag, words are violence, and college should be free.

Their parents, regardless of party, are going to be a different story regarding Peterson. He's just some slightly-self-important smug dude with probably a little too much of his life spent in academic circles, spouting the same common sense **** middle-America's Gen X-and-older already have a handle on. The usual whitebread harmless stuff the millennials like to lose their composure over because it's apparently mean and too late-20th-century.

 

[jmc]

I’ve seen enough of if him to know the fear some people have of him is bafflingly misplaced. There was an article about his now infamous Cathy Newman interview basically asking ‘why can’t people hear what he’s saying’. I have no clue how someone that speaks so clearly can be so wildly misheard.

 

[PacificBoy]

Peterson is quite conservative though. He rubs shoulders with Doug Ford, makes videos for Prager U and headlines seminars for Turning Point USA. He's conservative on abortion, gun control, climate change and gay marriage. His politics is driven by what he detests, what he perceives as cultural marxism or the radical left. That is, he doesn't have anything against the LGBT community but because their activism is dominated by cultural marxists, he's against the movement on principle, so he claims.

It isn't surprising to learn his worldview is underpinned by Judeo-Christianity:

The Bible is a series of books written, edited and assembled over thousands of years. It contains the most influential stories of mankind. Knowledge of those stories is essential to a deep understanding of Western culture, which is in turn vital to proper psychological health (as human beings are cultural animals) and societal stability. These stories are neither history, as we commonly conceive it, nor empirical science. Instead, they are investigations into the structure of Being itself and calls to action within that Being. They have deep psychological significance.

Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories - Jordan B Peterson

Nor is it that his views on sexuality, particularly women's, are very traditional. In this period of great change, he's found a captive reactionary audience with his brand of updated red scare and repackaged Christian western standards.

But that doesn't seem to be the stuff he's confronted on in these campus videos. It's pretty much irrational freakout "you don't think transgender is a thing! You believe Canada's law reigning in anything deemed as 'hate speech' is an overstep, what a ****ing literal Nazi! Eat bullhorn!". His whole position on the transgender thing just seems to be "I respect you, live your life as you please, no skin off my back - just don't try to fine me for not referring to you as 'zhe'. I'll just choose to address you by your first name instead, bystep the pronoun as I think it's pretty silly". Which is totally goddamn reasonable and the majority of western society is going to agree with him on, male and female alike.

In the end, sure, that's where he arrives at, after being repeatedly told this was the case from the beginning. If we were to take him at face value and assume he's protesting the compelled speech aspect of the bill, he gets it wrong on several counts: One, there was already a similar piece of legislation in place when he spoke up in 2016, the Ontario Human Rights Code

The Ontario Human Rights Code was amended on June 19, 2012 to add Gender Identity and Gender Expression to the list of prohibited grounds.

Ontario Human Rights Code - Wikipedia

And he hasn't been penalised under it before or since. Two, Bill C-16 simply added 'Gender Identity and Gender Expression' to existing hate speech laws, laws which were installed in 1970. Speech is already compelled in Canada in that sense, and you basically need to commit a hate crime to be charged. Based on precedence in law, a simple refusal to not call someone by their preferred pronouns wouldn't land someone in jail or a fine, unless the situation escalates badly.

 

[jmc]

I don't know what his exact fears are but the only reason someone would kick up such a fuss is if the law is written poorly, or is written in a way that could be used in a malicious way by bad actors. No-one should be compelled to refer to someone in a particular way. That's just ridiculous. That would be like compelling someone to believe in a particular religion or deity.

 

[PacificBoy]

Feel free to point out which part of Bill C-16 compels someone to be referred to in a particular way.

 

[Aximili86]

It does if someone takes offense to the way they're being addressed, reports it, and the powers-that-be deem them justified in being offended.

That's some pretty broad stuff, right there. Depending on just who's on that board determining that at any one time, "offensive" can be anything. From genuine shouldn't-ever-be-tolerated racial slurs, to publically-referring-to-Laverne-Cox-or-whatever-as-a-'biological male'-to-their-face. Which isn't something I'd think is a nice thing to do either, true as it may be, but in a free society you get to do it.

Seems from what he's saying on campus that's what he takes issue with, anyway, rather than preaching that transgender people have some psych issue that needs to be cured or some crazy **** like that. It's the "get in line, call me 'zhe'" and this potential Canadian government enforcement of that, anyone declining to do so potentially rising to hate-speech on paper.

And, you know, he's right. That's a ridiculous level for this to rise to. So long as they're being treated with respect, not singled out & vilified, a dude like Peterson simply declining to use a third gender pronoun should totally fly.

 

[PacificBoy]

It does is someone takes offense to the way they're being addressed, reports it, and the powers-that-be deem them justified in being offended.

That's some pretty broad stuff, right there. Depending on just who's on that board determining that at any one time, "offensive" can be anything. From genuine shouldn't-ever-be-tolerated racial slurs, to publically-referring-to-Laverne-Cox-or-whatever-as-a-'biological male'-to-their-face. Which isn't something I'd think is a nice thing to do either, true as it may be, but in a free society you get to do it.

Seems from what he's saying on campus that's what he takes issue with, anyway, rather than preaching that transgender people have some psych issue that needs to be cured or some crazy **** like that. It's the "get in line, call me 'zhe'" and this potential Canadian government enforcement of that, anyone declining to do so potentially rising to hate-speech on paper.

And, you know, he's right. That's a ridiculous level for this to rise to. So long as they're being treated with respect, not singled out & vilified, a dude like Peterson simply declining to use a third gender pronoun should totally fly.

And that's what the bill does essentially. The bill and other already-existing surrounding laws and guidelines require discrimination and/or harassment to be demonstrated, not mere offense taken.

 

[Aximili86]

And what he's putting out there is there's no guarantee "he didn't call me 'zhe', he called me 'he' or 'she', or simply refused to play the pronoun game entirely and addresses me by name - he used pronouns for the males & females!" could theoretically be taken as "discrimination", depending on how broad the government authority defines it.

If someone's taken offense, they've claimed the words hurt them tangibly (confidence in the workplace, psychological wellbeing at school, whatever) even though there's no actual academic/commercial/whatever shunning at play, what's to stop that being considered "hurtful and harmful" under this definition? "Discrimination"? Words are considered action these days, right? A college kid's definition of discrimination is going to differ to their parent's generation. You get 500 college kids picketing the government body's offices for a month, chances are they start getting more lax with their definition, appeasement over time seems to be a thing.

Actually with you that theoretically, there's a burden of proof there in the law. But what constitutes proof, and proof of what exactly, is going to be pretty amorphous in this day and age, depending on who's on that committee, what their take on the definitions are, and what the diversity-of-thought makeup of said committee might be.

 

[PacificBoy]

Right, and he's making a slippery slope argument, not one of case law. Legal discrimination and harassment have usually far higher thresholds, and provincial-level codes of conduct take their cue from them. It shouldn't differ from how other forms of harm are protected against, how hate speech laws already operate in Canada. If it does, then it sets a new precedent. More than willing to carry the conversation on if it does.

Something to think about as well: Why hasn't any free speech activist, advocate or absolutist martyred themselves yet on this? It's still fresh and a hot-button issue, a one-way ticket to instant infamy.

 

[Donner]

Peterson announced that he wasn't going to use a person's preferred pronoun. He could have just called them by their name but he wanted to make a statement to rile people up. He's a *****e.

 

[Sithborg]

I don't know what his exact fears are but the only reason someone would kick up such a fuss is if the law is written poorly, or is written in a way that could be used in a malicious way by bad actors. No-one should be compelled to refer to someone in a particular way. That's just ridiculous. That would be like compelling someone to believe in a particular religion or deity.

And that is why "freedom of religion" is the new form of legal discrimination.

 

[jmc]

Feel free to point out which part of Bill C-16 compels someone to be referred to in a particular way.

I don't know and I frankly don't care. That's for Canadians to sort out. I'll I'm saying is that if someone was reacting to it so vehemently then there's something wrong with the the wording.

 

[Sithborg]

I fail to see how preferred pronouns are any different from preferred names.

And we do have decades of case law about workplace harassment. Which is what resulted in that one google employee getting fired, despite his claims of free speech.

 

[jmc]

I fail to see how preferred pronouns are any different from preferred names.

And we do have decades of case law about workplace harassment. Which is what resulted in that one google employee getting fired, despite his claims of free speech.

Because it requires you to alter you speech patterns that's why. That's an inconvenience that shouldn't be place upon people.

 

[Sithborg]

So it isn't harassment to constantly misgender someone? On purpose?

 

[jmc]

Well, look at it from the other person's perspective. You're asking said person to refer to someone who might be clearly born male or female as the opposite sex, in essence you'd be asking that person to lie to themselves about who it is they are looking at. How one navigates that seem reasonably straight forward, just refer to that person by their name. That way no-one gets bent out of shape in terms of the language being used.

 

[Sithborg]

But what about the racist's point of view? But what about the sexist's point of view? But what about the homophobe's point of view?

And you are asking the trans person to put up with not being who they are. I really don't think it is too much to ask for them to be referred to their gender, which includes their name, which is a problem for those that transition later on.

Now, I admit I am not fully read up on issues with non-binary people.

 

[jmc]

But what about the racist's point of view? But what about the sexist's point of view? But what about the homophobe's point of view?

And you are asking the trans person to put up with not being who they are. I really don't think it is too much to ask for them to be referred to their gender, which includes their name, which is a problem for those that transition later on.

Now, I admit I am not fully read up on issues with non-binary people.

Calling someone a racial or homophobic slur is not the same as someone being unable to look at someone as being the opposite sex to what they clearly are, and to suggest it's in anyway, shape or form comparable to the former is frankly absurd. It would be the equivalent of asking someone to say the sky is green when it's clearly blue. There's a factual reality here that cannot be overlooked. I think any reasonable trans person is going to be aware of the unique position they are in, are aware of their reality, and won't impose upon others how they should address them. If they want to negotiate with people about it and people agree to adhere to their wishes that's fine, but I'd be willing to bet most understand some people are just never going to see them as they see themselves and just live with it.

 

[Mani-Man]

We are not talking here about Peterson refusing to call a guy Ma'am who has a bushy beard just because he wants to.

We are talking about Peterson refusing basic respect to People who struggle with the gender they were born with for no other reason than that he is a awful human being who demands all the respect in the world but never has the decency to give out the same.

We are not talking about some moody person suddenly deciding that they want to be a different gender here.
We are talking about years of struggle, years of self loathing and hate, psychological trauma they overcome to accept and embrace a different Gender than the one they were born with.

And then comes such a assclown like Peterson who puts his nose high up in the air who refuses to Aknowledge those peoples struggle and who they are simply because he is a arrogant ****.

Thats what we are talking about and not some guy being offended because he wears a wig and nobody calls him a lady.
This is not some cartoonish reason why people dont like Jordan Peterson.