Opinion of Jordan Peterson?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, given that (again) actual proponents of the bill have endorsed my interpretation of it, and given that social norms on this subject are rapidly shifting in favor of people like discovolante who apparently welcome fining and jailing people for "being dickweeds," I really don't think it's that far-fetched to conclude that there is significant potential for abuse of this law in the not-so-distant future. If you disagree, fine-- but people like Peterson can hardly be called crackpots for warning about these dangers when the aforementioned facts bolster his claim.

We've already been over this and you've basically conceded that even if this law were to be interpreted as you're so afraid it will be, that would only cover instances of repeated, deliberate and malicious misgendering. I get that you feel strongly about people having the right to engage in this kind of behavior (though it's interesting to me that you backed down from applying the same absolutist approach to sexual harassment, even though it's the most directly comparable type of speech to what we're discussing here), but that hardly justifies the kind of hyperbolic handwringing that JP (and yourself, insofar as you brought up compelled speech even though it's demonstrably not a relevant issue) engaged in.

I am not aware of any problems created by simplifying that statement down to that level.

Clearly you're not aware, no.

The problem is that it leads you to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the gender debate, so that you end up thinking it's about the Real, Rational, Objective definition of gender vs some postmodern bullsh*t college kids are into. When people pointing out to you that the Real, Rational, Objective definition is actually just as much a product of social norms and conventions as any other, you then retreat to "sure, I know it's more complicated, but I'm just simplifying" without connecting the dots on how your simplification is obfuscating the issue.

[afleitch]

So I watched his interview with the human thumb.

He's clearly well gone now. Not in the way that he was a few years ago, when it was clear to a lot of us that JP was not whom his fans clearly thought him to be. But he sort of self destructed in real time. Don't get high on your own supply.

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1486103450446303234?s=21

Lmao anyone who called him intelligent care to take back that statement?

[Mr. Smith]

A circle talker with fancy words and dogwhistles thrown in.

[afleitch]

New Update: He rage quit Twitter because people piled on him for criticising a curvy woman being on the cover of Sports Illustrated which he saw as imposed 'authoritarian tolerance.'

[RINO Tom]

Anyone who cites Jung as a major influence (or just all but plagiarizes him, as in in Peterson's case) is an HP to me.

Yikes.

[Kleine Scheiße]

a hypocrite and a pied piper hooligan

[Sol]

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. In any case, English pronouns have historically been assigned to children at birth, and they are assigned based on the newborn's sexual dimorphism, which is rooted in their chromosomes. Thus, gender was accurately determined through observation before genetic theory was even discovered-- and certainly before gender theory existed.

This is not actually the how the linguistics of English pronoun assignment works for the record. First of all, as I'm sure you've heard folks like me trot out for a while, singular they has been used for ages. There's also of course many subcultures where people use different pronouns; the historical practice of gay men using she/her pronouns for each other is one that springs to mind, as does the Public Universal Friend.

But it's also worth noting that English speakers didn't and don't use gendered pronouns in consistent ways directly coinciding with the gender assigned to children at birth, and never have.

Think about it. If you meet a new person, you generally don't ask them their biological sex (not even radical trans people do this! basically nobody ever does this, even in very woke and formal contexts). You make an assumption of what they are based on their presentation and then use that pronoun.

The trouble is that that assumption may not correspond to their biological sex! There are plenty of trans people who that will fail for, probably most; it also won't work for many drag queens and kings, it won't work for cis people who look naturally androgynous, etc. People use gendered pronouns based on perception of gender/sex, which is a matter of presentation. How you present yourself is correlated with your assigned sex but it's not a perfect correlation and there are lots of people who's pronouns as often used in practice won't correlate.

[Person Man]

I don't know about his views on psychology, but his historical (and political) perspectives are garbage.

Isn't he pretty much just a standard Canadian left-liberal who is critical of certain elements of contemporary "woke" ideology like with the trans stuff like Joe Rogan. All these college students calling him alt right or even a nazi because he disagrees with them on like two or three things strikes me as pretty hysterical.

Regardless I'm not a fan because he comes off like a pseudointellectual sophist most times I've seen him.

this, exactly.  Anyone who thinks Peterson (or Rogan) is "alt-right" either doesn't know how we're defining alt-right this year or has never heard more than 6 seconds of him.

Maybe he's not alt-right, but there is definitely something going on where you have the most skilled top professionals and the wealthiest major business folk saying that they are against fossil fuels, support women's and LGBT's rights, and a some form of strong public safety net, and then go off and say that they are joining the GOP because some weird child on Tumblr or whatever called them a bad word.

[Agonized-Statism]

"You're advocating structural change? Heh, too bad you're not a perfect person by my standards"

[Dr. MB]

His all-beef diet will probably kill him in the next few years. I am pro-life and take no pleasure in reporting this.

[Person Man]

His all-beef diet will probably kill him in the next few years. I am pro-life and take no pleasure in reporting this.

Trump is still alive isn’t he?

[7,052,770]

The type of person who would claim that Sports Illustrated putting a few "plus size" models in their swimsuit edition is not merely a business decision (because a lot of men are into that), but a:

[VBM]

Living proof that education does not equal intelligence.

Haven’t you said before that Democrats are smarter than Republicans because more Democrats go to college?

[John Dule]

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. In any case, English pronouns have historically been assigned to children at birth, and they are assigned based on the newborn's sexual dimorphism, which is rooted in their chromosomes. Thus, gender was accurately determined through observation before genetic theory was even discovered-- and certainly before gender theory existed.

This is not actually the how the linguistics of English pronoun assignment works for the record. First of all, as I'm sure you've heard folks like me trot out for a while, singular they has been used for ages. There's also of course many subcultures where people use different pronouns; the historical practice of gay men using she/her pronouns for each other is one that springs to mind, as does the Public Universal Friend.

But it's also worth noting that English speakers didn't and don't use gendered pronouns in consistent ways directly coinciding with the gender assigned to children at birth, and never have.

Think about it. If you meet a new person, you generally don't ask them their biological sex (not even radical trans people do this! basically nobody ever does this, even in very woke and formal contexts). You make an assumption of what they are based on their presentation and then use that pronoun.

The trouble is that that assumption may not correspond to their biological sex! There are plenty of trans people who that will fail for, probably most; it also won't work for many drag queens and kings, it won't work for cis people who look naturally androgynous, etc. People use gendered pronouns based on perception of gender/sex, which is a matter of presentation. How you present yourself is correlated with your assigned sex but it's not a perfect correlation and there are lots of people who's pronouns as often used in practice won't correlate.

There are also plenty of people who see pyrite and call it gold based on how it "presents itself." That does not change the unalterable fact that "gold" is a scientific term for a particular type of substance, determined by its atoms. Humans knew what gold was before understanding atomic theory, just as we knew what gender was before discovering chromosomes. That doesn't mean the terms are any less objective, because they denote scientific facts.

[dead0man]

I don't know about his views on psychology, but his historical (and political) perspectives are garbage.

Isn't he pretty much just a standard Canadian left-liberal who is critical of certain elements of contemporary "woke" ideology like with the trans stuff like Joe Rogan. All these college students calling him alt right or even a nazi because he disagrees with them on like two or three things strikes me as pretty hysterical.

Regardless I'm not a fan because he comes off like a pseudointellectual sophist most times I've seen him.

this, exactly.  Anyone who thinks Peterson (or Rogan) is "alt-right" either doesn't know how we're defining alt-right this year or has never heard more than 6 seconds of him.

Maybe he's not alt-right, but there is definitely something going on where you have the most skilled top professionals and the wealthiest major business folk saying that they are against fossil fuels, support women's and LGBT's rights, and a some form of strong public safety net, and then go off and say that they are joining the GOP because some weird child on Tumblr or whatever called them a bad word.

I have no idea what or who you're talking about, but I agree, the described behavior is weird.

[Saint Milei]

I don't know about his views on psychology, but his historical (and political) perspectives are garbage.

Isn't he pretty much just a standard Canadian left-liberal who is critical of certain elements of contemporary "woke" ideology like with the trans stuff like Joe Rogan. All these college students calling him alt right or even a nazi because he disagrees with them on like two or three things strikes me as pretty hysterical.

Regardless I'm not a fan because he comes off like a pseudointellectual sophist most times I've seen him.

this, exactly.  Anyone who thinks Peterson (or Rogan) is "alt-right" either doesn't know how we're defining alt-right this year or has never heard more than 6 seconds of him.

Maybe he's not alt-right, but there is definitely something going on where you have the most skilled top professionals and the wealthiest major business folk saying that they are against fossil fuels, support women's and LGBT's rights, and a some form of strong public safety net, and then go off and say that they are joining the GOP because some weird child on Tumblr or whatever called them a bad word.

Yeah it's called progressive/democratic intolerance. Stop scaring every1 away with your nonsense

[fhtagn]

FF for telling men to clean their rooms, also for appreciating lobsters.

[Sol]

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. In any case, English pronouns have historically been assigned to children at birth, and they are assigned based on the newborn's sexual dimorphism, which is rooted in their chromosomes. Thus, gender was accurately determined through observation before genetic theory was even discovered-- and certainly before gender theory existed.

This is not actually the how the linguistics of English pronoun assignment works for the record. First of all, as I'm sure you've heard folks like me trot out for a while, singular they has been used for ages. There's also of course many subcultures where people use different pronouns; the historical practice of gay men using she/her pronouns for each other is one that springs to mind, as does the Public Universal Friend.

But it's also worth noting that English speakers didn't and don't use gendered pronouns in consistent ways directly coinciding with the gender assigned to children at birth, and never have.

Think about it. If you meet a new person, you generally don't ask them their biological sex (not even radical trans people do this! basically nobody ever does this, even in very woke and formal contexts). You make an assumption of what they are based on their presentation and then use that pronoun.

The trouble is that that assumption may not correspond to their biological sex! There are plenty of trans people who that will fail for, probably most; it also won't work for many drag queens and kings, it won't work for cis people who look naturally androgynous, etc. People use gendered pronouns based on perception of gender/sex, which is a matter of presentation. How you present yourself is correlated with your assigned sex but it's not a perfect correlation and there are lots of people who's pronouns as often used in practice won't correlate.

There are also plenty of people who see pyrite and call it gold based on how it "presents itself." That does not change the unalterable fact that "gold" is a scientific term for a particular type of substance, determined by its atoms. Humans knew what gold was before understanding atomic theory, just as we knew what gender was before discovering chromosomes. That doesn't mean the terms are any less objective, because they denote scientific facts.

I don't want to go down the hole into semantics and word meanings and how we can objectively determine whatever anything means because I don't want to and I'm probably not qualified enough but I just want to acknowledge the mine shaft is there.

The big problem with all this stuff is that it appeals to some sort of notion of biological sex or whatever as something which can be 1) scientifically delineated clearly, 2) is relevant to much of day to day life...which just isn't the case.

For example, there are women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. A woman with this condition will be karyotypically XY, but in terms of development will be nearly identical to a woman with XX chromosomes, except that she will be infertile as women with CAIS lack uteruses and ovaries. They generally live their lives as women and identify as such.

Under your definition, a woman with CAIS is going to be "biologically" male...but nearly every other substantial physical feature is going to look feminine. Why do chromosomes matter more than the obvious morphological and yes, biological, features of physical anatomy?

There are a million such edge cases; I haven't even talked about chimeras, who will have both XX and XY genotypes, or all kinds of other issues.

But that brings me to point 2: who cares? If we return to CAIS for a moment, imagine a woman with CAIS who's passed up for a promotion for pretty obvious sexist reasons. Does "biological sex" have any relevance here? Clearly not--she's being persecuted because she's operating socially as a woman, and the fact that she has XY chromosomes does not matter at all.

The same is true of a trans woman who's in the same situation. Her assigned gender at birth literally doesn't matter and is really mainly academic. Biological sex is mainly academic and irrelevant when most things that matter in society operate off of perception and gender performance.

[John Dule]

I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. In any case, English pronouns have historically been assigned to children at birth, and they are assigned based on the newborn's sexual dimorphism, which is rooted in their chromosomes. Thus, gender was accurately determined through observation before genetic theory was even discovered-- and certainly before gender theory existed.

This is not actually the how the linguistics of English pronoun assignment works for the record. First of all, as I'm sure you've heard folks like me trot out for a while, singular they has been used for ages. There's also of course many subcultures where people use different pronouns; the historical practice of gay men using she/her pronouns for each other is one that springs to mind, as does the Public Universal Friend.

But it's also worth noting that English speakers didn't and don't use gendered pronouns in consistent ways directly coinciding with the gender assigned to children at birth, and never have.

Think about it. If you meet a new person, you generally don't ask them their biological sex (not even radical trans people do this! basically nobody ever does this, even in very woke and formal contexts). You make an assumption of what they are based on their presentation and then use that pronoun.

The trouble is that that assumption may not correspond to their biological sex! There are plenty of trans people who that will fail for, probably most; it also won't work for many drag queens and kings, it won't work for cis people who look naturally androgynous, etc. People use gendered pronouns based on perception of gender/sex, which is a matter of presentation. How you present yourself is correlated with your assigned sex but it's not a perfect correlation and there are lots of people who's pronouns as often used in practice won't correlate.

There are also plenty of people who see pyrite and call it gold based on how it "presents itself." That does not change the unalterable fact that "gold" is a scientific term for a particular type of substance, determined by its atoms. Humans knew what gold was before understanding atomic theory, just as we knew what gender was before discovering chromosomes. That doesn't mean the terms are any less objective, because they denote scientific facts.

I don't want to go down the hole into semantics and word meanings and how we can objectively determine whatever anything means because I don't want to and I'm probably not qualified enough but I just want to acknowledge the mine shaft is there.

The big problem with all this stuff is that it appeals to some sort of notion of biological sex or whatever as something which can be 1) scientifically delineated clearly, 2) is relevant to much of day to day life...which just isn't the case.

For example, there are women with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. A woman with this condition will be karyotypically XY, but in terms of development will be nearly identical to a woman with XX chromosomes, except that she will be infertile as women with CAIS lack uteruses and ovaries. They generally live their lives as women and identify as such.

Under your definition, a woman with CAIS is going to be "biologically" male...but nearly every other substantial physical feature is going to look feminine. Why do chromosomes matter more than the obvious morphological and yes, biological, features of physical anatomy?

There are a million such edge cases; I haven't even talked about chimeras, who will have both XX and XY genotypes, or all kinds of other issues.

But that brings me to point 2: who cares? If we return to CAIS for a moment, imagine a woman with CAIS who's passed up for a promotion for pretty obvious sexist reasons. Does "biological sex" have any relevance here? Clearly not--she's being persecuted because she's operating socially as a woman, and the fact that she has XY chromosomes does not matter at all.

The same is true of a trans woman who's in the same situation. Her assigned gender at birth literally doesn't matter and is really mainly academic. Biological sex is mainly academic and irrelevant when most things that matter in society operate off of perception and gender performance.

I hate to recycle my old arguments, but until they receive an adequate response I guess I'll just have to keep doing it: Acknowledging the existence of statistical outliers does not necessitate integrating them into our everyday speech. Humans have two arms. Is that true for all humans? No, but barring birth defects and accidents, it is the rule. The human genetic template provides for two arms. There is no need for an asterisk.

Put more simply, your argument is about birth defects. These are not relevant to this conversation.

Who cares about this, you ask? I do, and so do the vast majority of humans. Biological sex may not be the most relevant way of classifying people in every social situation, but it is a biological reality that governs our society and affects how we perceive one another. The idea that biological sex is "mainly academic"-- implying that gender theory isn't-- is one of the most laughable statements I've ever come across on this site.

[Independents for Nihilism]

Surprised John Dule is defending Peterson so strongly considering his recent distaste for the thickness on Twitter.

Anyway, it pains me somewhat to say lean HP. I like the idea of a vaguely conservative pop-psychologist with a taste for sweeping statements about the nature of autocracy and self-determination and roles in societies and the monomyth but the more Peterson says, the less substance he has. In my opinion he hasn't been completely negative, to be fair, but any meaningful tidbits are buried amongst trite platitudes, particularly since his rehab stint. He could apply some nuance and cut through the bullsh**t, but instead he's contributing to it, and I think he needs to take his own advice and get his life in order and lose some of the ego.

[John Dule]

Surprised John Dule is defending Peterson so strongly considering his recent distaste for the thickness on Twitter.

I'm past the point of defending him in this thread. We've graduated to other topics. I still think he was worth listening to at some point, but fame has clearly driven him off the deep end.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

his facebook is great but he needs to stay off twitter.

[Aurelius]

His fame has clearly gotten to him. At the same time, his writings were immensely helpful to me during a very dark time in my life two years ago, which I've alluded to on here before but which is very hard to describe just how bad it was. I needed a firm and honest kick in the pants and he gave it to me.

[Devout Centrist]

Pretty much a certified dullard. Simple as