Blogpost infested with rightwingers violating rabble policy - hi, mods!

531 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I've seen several online/news articles about this or similar topics in which the journalist attempts to stay on the right side of the line, but we end up with stuff like ...

Got any links?  Real examples would probably be helpful.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

When I went to law school we had one Prof who insisted on using formal names in his classes. So it was Mr. Smithe and Mr. Jones etc. For the women in the class they got too choose between Miss and Mrs. He would not use nor accept Ms. It really pissed off many of the women in the class.

That was in 1992. Boy we have come a long way in 25 years. I am not quite sure whether we are getting more inclusive or whether we have taken a spur line into a another place all together.  

I noticed in the example above that in one part vis could stand in for his, why not vers?  And in another verself could stand in for herself, why not vimself?  The example shows no pattern so I am left wondering if I use vers instead of vis is that an insult or are they interchangeable terms?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I noticed in the example above that in one part vis could stand in for his, why not vers?  And in another verself could stand in for herself, why not vimself?  The example shows no pattern so I am left wondering if I use vers instead of vis is that an insult or are they interchangeable terms?

FWIW, I do kind of wonder why there isn't ONE set of proposed non-binary pronouns.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the times they are a changin', and we need to tweak the language to accomodate those who don't wish to use male, female or plural pronouns.  So why do or should we need multiple sets of non-binary pronouns? 

In other words, if humans have made do for centuries with two sets of singular pronouns (he/she, his/hers, etc.) and one set of plural pronouns that sometimes do double-duty (them, theirs, etc.) then how do we need anything more than just a fourth set of pronouns?

I get that "he" or "she" might be offensive to someone who feels they have no gender, but how would just going with "xe" be offensive enough that several other options must be presented?

6079_Smith_W

Magoo.

"They" is fine.

Or the name.

And thanks for stepping in, k. Good to see you.

Maybe your prof also had a persecution complex and blamed it all on defending civilization against the barbarian hordes (and let's not forget those who pervert the language and use "individual" as a noun), or maybe not.  But I think the real point of the exercise is not about grammar. It is about finding scapegoats to justify discrimination.

 

 

 

Boze

Quote:
That sounds an awful lot to me like objecting to "the traditional definition of marriage".

Surely if somebody says that they believe in the traditional definition of marriage, that's not a violation of anything. We're not talking about refusing service to people who identify as non-binary.

Quote:
Really? These protections have been on the books at the provincial level for years now.

How many complaints have there been? How many hearings? How many fines?

What I get is that Peterson has been ringing the alarm bells over nothing, and he hasn't even taken the great moral stand he has been talking about, because then it will be clear that it is over nothing.

Are you saying that it's not a violation or that it is a violation? Because you seem to keep equivocating based on whether Peterson is making a fuss about nothing or a dangerous violator of students' rights not to be misgendered.

It also seems to me that this gender-neutral pronoun demand didn't even exist ten years ago.

Quote:
 But I think the real point of the exercise is not about grammar. It is about finding scapegoats to justify discrimination.

Given what else Peterson has said about political correctness, do you really think this is about scapegoating? Is it maybe not that he wants to stand up to the PC-police?

I for one will not accept that the times they-are-a-changing when it comes to putting invented genders on par with male and female which are as old as time.

6079_Smith_W

News flash Boze, there is only one kind of marriage in this country.

And I have pretty consistently said that Peterson is making up all this nonsense.

Case in point, when are those PC police going to show up, so he finally can stand up to them? My guess is never.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Prof was a Conservative who hated feminism. The point I was making is that he was not shouted down before he could lecture. His views on many things were IMO obnoxious however his teaching of criminal law was adequate and he had been around for a very long time. Times have changed.

6079_Smith_W

I don't think anyone has interrupted Peterson's classes either. 

And personally, I don't like speakers being shouted down, but in a lot of cases (like this one) I don't think the actions of protestors can be viewed in isolation. Peterson's claims about the law, about the university administration, and about those who support inclusion of trans rights are simply not true.

I also question how much of a free speech issue it really is when the speaker in question has plenty of opportunities at other venues, and in the media, to speak without interruption.

As for times changing, I am not so sure. There have always been academics purged and silenced for their views . Neither has happened to Peterson. The most the university has done is to advise him to stop saying he intends to break the law, and remind him of his professional responsibilities, while at the same time underscoring his freedom of speech. I think that is a fair caution.

(edit)

A bit of an aside... Peterson was on Sam Harris's podcast not too long ago, and the point they got bogged down on was a bizarre one - Peterson's belief that only things which help us survive are true. Anything which gets us killed is false.  I guess the second law of thermodynamics is false then.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b.-pet...

 

 

 

 

Boze

This is kind of staggering. Can you imagine walking up to somebody who's trying to speak and blowing an air horn a couple of feet from their ear, because you think they're a bigot? And security does NOTHING. Once again - these students are a bigger danger than anything Peterson could possibly say. This kind of behaviour needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. And the ideas that they are acting on - like the idea that any discriminatory or offensive speech is "hate speech" that shouldn't be heard - need to be condemned as well.

Of course, the man isn't a transphobe, having said pretty much nothing about transsexuals. 

Quote:
I also question how much of a free speech issue it really is when the speaker in question has plenty of opportunities at other venues, and in the media, to speak without interruption.

Small comfort for the people who came that day and were excited to hear the man speak at their university! If this happened at my school I would say to the disruptors (not calling them protesters) "What gives you the right to decide what ideas other people are exposed to?"

Quote:
As for times changing, I am not so sure. There have always been academics purged and silenced for their views . Neither has happened to Peterson. The most the university has done is to advise him to stop saying he intends to break the law, and remind him of his professional responsibilities, while at the same time underscoring his freedom of speech. I think that is a fair caution.

I don't know how you can keep saying that he is threatening to break the law, and then turning around and saying that there's no question of legality here.

Quote:
A bit of an aside... Peterson was on Sam Harris's podcast not too long ago, and the point they got bogged down on was a bizarre one - Peterson's belief that only things which help us survive are true. Anything which gets us killed is false.  I guess the second law of thermodynamics is false then.

I'd say that's not a great summary of his views.

6079_Smith_W

I don't know how you can keep saying that he is threatening to break the law, and then turning around and saying that there's no question of legality here.

Simple. He doesn't understand the law, as has been pointed out in a number of references. Despite the fact that the law has not, and will not criminalize speech, or force him to say things he doesn't want to say, it really reflects badly on an institution like a university to have one of their professors insisting that he intends to break it (again, even though he hasn't, and likely can't). Likewise the effect some of the things he is saying has on his reputation, and the ability to do his job (also in the two letters).

I mention it only because that is the closest the university has come to imposing limits on his speech. Telling staff that they are expected to not promote lawbreaking isn't an unfair request.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I also question how much of a free speech issue it really is when the speaker in question has plenty of opportunities at other venues, and in the media, to speak without interruption.

"I also question how much of a "book burning" it is if there are other books you could read."

"I also question how much of a racism issue it is if there are other places for black golfers to play."

"I also question how much of a homophobia issue it is if there's another baker in town who'll bake a wedding cake."

I don't think this is a particularly strong argument.  It doesn't miss the point; it goes out of its way to avoid it.

6079_Smith_W

except it isn't the same as bookburning, or refusing someone service. There are several arguments here. In the first place, a church is not required to rent its space out to a burlesque show, and even if it were, someone disrupting that show is not the same thing.

Secondly, when one is well-known, and has had their (see what I did there? ) ideas publicized in national media, is it really suppression of free speech if someone objects to them appearing in a certain venue?

 

 

Boze

It's at the very least demonstrating contempt for the principle of free speech, and for the right of the audience to hear the speaker. Doesn't freedom of speech apply to the listener as well as the speaker? Also I don't know why the "not required to give a platform" argument keeps coming up, also, because he was invited and the university gave assent, so there is no question of whether the university is "required" to let him speak there. The university already let him speak there; the students are claiming the right to interfere with speakers they disapprove of irrespective of the university's decisions.

Quote:
Simple. He doesn't understand the law, as has been pointed out in a number of references. Despite the fact that the law has not, and will not criminalize speech, or force him to say things he doesn't want to say, it really reflects badly on an institution like a university to have one of their professors insisting that he intends to break it (again, even though he hasn't, and likely can't). Likewise the effect some of the things he is saying has on his reputation, and the ability to do his job (also in the two letters).

Is "I'm not going to use gender-neutral pronouns," which is all that he's said, really "insisting that he intends to break the law," even though according to you, the law doesn't require such speech?

Quote:
I mention it only because that is the closest the university has come to imposing limits on his speech. Telling staff that they are expected to not promote lawbreaking isn't an unfair request.

Again, is "I'm not going to use gender-neutral pronouns and you shouldn't either" really "promoting lawbreaking" if the law doesn't compel the use of those pronouns?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
except it isn't the same as bookburning, or refusing someone service.

Of course it's not.  Because it's an analogy. 

I don't care if there are twenty gay-positive bakeries in your town; if the one you chose won't bake a cake for you because you're gay, it's an issue of homophobia.

And I don't care if Peterson has a fully-equipped broadcast studio in his basement; if he's scheduled to speak but cannot because protesters have brought air horns and noise generators to drown him out, it's an issue of free speech.

Quote:
is it really suppression of free speech if someone objects to them appearing in a certain venue?

Can you clarify:  by "objects to" do you mean "actively attempts to prevent at all costs"?

Because I don't that that ANYONE is suggesting that others shouldn't be permitted to "object".  And I think there's a very meaningful difference between "objecting to" someone's speech, and actively trying to drown it out so that others cannot hear it.

 

6079_Smith_W

No, he said explicitly that he believed the things he said were illegal. And that is what the letter warned him about.

Never mind his musing about fines and  hunger strikes when he winds up in jail.

Again, links to the letters:

http://thevarsity.ca/2016/10/24/u-of-t-letter-asks-jordan-peterson-to-re...

And no, a venue is not required to rent out to anyone who asks, and being shut down by a protest isn't the same as refusing someone's right to free speech, especially when that person already has a national audience.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And no, a venue is not required to rent out to anyone who asks

I agree.  If UofT doesn't wish to host him, they don't have to.  But aren't we talking about what happened when they chose to?

Quote:
and being shut down by a protest isn't the same as refusing someone's right to free speech

Unfortunately, that very same logic would lead to the conclusion that if the Westboro Baptist Church makes a funeral service for your gay friend impossible, it's OK because you can still have a memorial on Facebook.

There's just no need to "shut down" legal speech.  That's all. 

It's why white-noise generators aren't permitted in the House of Commons.

And really, I think it comes down to this question:  is it more of an infringement on the right to speak if we say?:

a) white-noise generators and air horns are a form of speech too, so if you're unpopular with some special interest group you should just get used to it

b) white-noise generators, air horns and other disruptions will no longer be tolerated at UofT events -- if you really don't want to hear someone speak to others then please don't attend

 

6079_Smith_W

No, I think we can both agree it is not a good thing (I have said so a couple of times).

Where we might not agree is whether it is a free speech issue.

I don't think anyone has ever made that argument regarding a funeral. Or keeping order in the commons.

 

had enough

6079_Smith_W:
Thank you for the link and the time reference. (It would be much better for all public discussions like that to have a transcript when it's done, from which a full and proper info grid could be defined and correlated more easily.)

You said: "Well if it is false, what exactly do you think the law compels him to say, and what do you base it on?"

You've answered your own question when in the next post you said: " And the bottom line is that if you do not speak, or speak in a way that leaves out gender pronouns, there is no violation..." You've undermined/contradicted your own viewpoint. Do you see that?

The words themselves in the text block in italics of the "informal" statement by OHRC (post #441), as you've generally restated, clearly define a list of "allowed" responses, which is patently compelled speech, notwithstanding whether you consider that good or bad. And, the compelled speech element is really a misrepresentation of the primary issue, which is people making something up and the "state" presuming to establish it through decree. You want a fairly direct parallel for that concept, consider "creationism," or more generally the creation of laws based on religious ideology.

I suggest you don't use that video link to support your position, since I see it as clearly doing the opposite. Since you referenced Cossman as a relevant "authority" (I assume), I'd classify many of her comments as "righteously deceptive," and one comment was particularly hideous, which is respecting the term "reasonable" in the constitution as validation of her viewpoint.

Have we forgotten the "decade of treason" so quickly, since it was the "special interpretation" of that very term, "reasonable," the traitor harper used to validate his despicable, traitorous attack on the central pillar of democracy, the right to vote, among many other things.

I also found it particulary informative she referred to herself as an "expert" several times, while blatantly misrepresenting/distorting the truth on several points. If arrogance was an aura, you'd be blinded by hers. If I was engaged in that discussion, I'm not sure I could stop myself from ridiculing her for that. The others gave personal background, which is normal and proper for context, notwithstanding personal judgments related to those details, but her attitude was blatantly that she thinks she is "expert," and so her opinions should be believed without question.

What I'm "digging my heels in on" is distortion of information in public discussion, regardless whether by mistake, righteousness or covert deceptive purpose. Try to distort the info network, whether to promote your, my, or anyone else's interests, and if I read it I'll come down on you for it, assuming I have the technical ability, which is only intermittently.

I've also scanned the rest of the posts in this thread more carefully, and you seem unwilling to consider possible uses/abuses of this law (related to it's real application). I won't "suggest" on that, but rather tell you that the "what if" scenario is an essential aspect of public discussion related to laws, no matter what they are, and as many as is relevant should be defined and considered. Any time a law is discussed, "what if" scenarios are a universal detail, just like reference to the constitution. It's a fundamental and very powerful part of information discovery, and is a central technique for much more than just laws.

"People making something up" will likely stick in your craw, and I'd be happy to discuss it with you (ie. create an info grid) even though the linearity of this style of detail listing makes that very difficult. But, at the risk of sounding arrogant, that involves details related to the biological nature of thought, among other things, and I assure you I can support my viewpoint very, very effectively.

Bottom line is that there a number of essential details you present that I support fully, but unfortunately you have to couch it in insanity. It's a destructive thing that when you need a thousand dollars, to angrily, and even violently for some, demand a million; especially when you're taking that million from others.

Ibid.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No, I think we can both agree it is not a good thing (I have said so a couple of times).

OK.  In the interest of science, let's see how far that agreement can be stretched.

-- do you believe that the University could prevent such disruptions if they wished to?

-- do you believe the the University SHOULD prevent such disruptions if they could?

Because if UofT invited (let's say) Ban Ki Moon to give a keynote speech and some "protester" stormed the stage and blasted an air horn in his ear, that protester would dragged out on their heels, expelled (if a student) or charged with tresspass (if not a student).  And honestly, same if they invited Galen Weston, the Dalai Lama, or Angela Davis.

 

6079_Smith_W

Actually, had enough, to say that the terms "they" or using a person's name would constitute compliance, isn't compelling someone to say anything, as Peterson claims.

And yes, if someone wanted to dig in their heels, there is nothing in the law forcing anyone to speak, or to use a word they do not want to use. There might be a complaint if someone refers to someone as "she" after being asked not to. But nothing forcing someone to say "they".

But really the bottom line is that Peterson has been talking publicly for months about what he thinks the law means, and warning that he isn't going to use gender-neutral pronouns. When in fact the one time when he reportedly did mis-gender someone by accident (it was at the event in November, as reported in one article) nothing happened. 

And really, until something does happen the best you can call his position is an unproven claim - one that runs counter to the policy of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and of every legal authority which has weighed in on the issue. Unless you can find a differing opinion.

And Magoo, you'll note that in the articles about the recent event that was shut down, at least one of the participants backed out because  they felt the security was inadequate. So someone else saw this coming. Peterson spoke a day or so later at Western to a sold out crowd, uninterrupted.

But my point it is hardly a freedom of speech issue, when the man speaks regularly, is in international media, on you tube, and his position is well-known. And doubly so when it is someone who invites that controversy by demonizing others.

Do you not see that those few (and it is a few, and not everyone who is in favour of respect and inclusion for trans people) who have disrupted his events are doing him a favour by giving him more ammunition? The notion that anyone has missed out on anything is frankly absurd.

 

Boze

Quote:
Do you not see that those few (and it is a few, and not everyone who is in favour of respect and inclusion for trans people) who have disrupted his events are doing him a favour by giving him more ammunition? The notion that anyone has missed out on anything is frankly absurd.

I kind of agree with this, but that's really beside the point. The point is, how much longer are universities going to let this shit continue? Why do I have professors who privately confide that they agree with Peterson about political correctness (and have been saying so since before he blew up in September), but don't dare say so publicly? It's because of this "we know what's best and we'll shout down any right-wingers!" attitude that people like Milo Yiannopoulous and, to a lesser extent, Donald Trump, have gained any notoriety at all. People are sick of the orthodoxy. Look at the reaction to The Red Pill movie. I don't like MRAs, but I see no reason to lie about them or make sure that people are not exposed to their ideas.

6079_Smith_W

Not sure I buy that, considering the number of people who have bought Peterson's claims, and aren't shy with the slurs.

I said at the very top of this thread that Peterson is free to be as much of a jerk as he wants to. But he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to the law, and his accusations about authoritarians and Nazis and Communism is nothing but fear-mongering (and he did that last in front of a friendly audience. See the end of this article: http://www.westerngazette.ca/news/peterson-rallies-for-free-speech-at-so... ), and the end result is more discrimination against trans people.

As for his predictions, here is what happened last month at McGill. As far as I know no one has been hauled off to the camps.  So no worries, people are still free to be as rude and discriminatory as they want.

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2017/02/protestors-disrupt-transphobic-talk/

Boze

From that link:

Quote:
“The kind of ideology embodied by this event’s speakers rejects the lived experiences of trans people, and enacts violence against trans communities by producing and reinforcing a culture that views trans people as medical and psychological anomalies, instead of real people,” wrote Benjamin Oldham, a U2 Linguistics student. “This kind of hateful ideology has no place on McGill’s campus.”

As I see it, the original point of imputing meaning to "lived experience" was to recognize things that had previously been left out of the analysis. It has been appropriated to claim authority that we are expected to honour above scholastic or professional inquiry. I will trust what I know of neuroscience and of animal sexual behaviour over anybody's "lived experience" in this domain. Without endorsing any of the specific positions taken by the speakers mentioned in that article, suffice it to say that trans people ARE medical and psychological anomalies, unless you believe that there is no biological component to gender and that the fact that the vast (like 99.99+%) majority of the population is CISgendered is due to either coincidence or socialization. It seems reasonable to wonder how in the fuck such a species would have evolved.

As for "enacts violence," that's just bullshit, as is your claim, Smith, that "the end result is more discrimination against trans people." There is no connection. Violence against trans people is a huge problem, but anybody trying to pin that on a speaker whose ONLY POSITION on anything remotely related to trans issues is "I'm not going to use made-up pronouns" is talking out of his/her/their/xer/per/zher ass.

As usual, where "hate speech!!!1" is concerned, the question is, who gets to decide? Whoever shouts the loudest? I am so sick of students thinking that anybody else should care who they don't want on "their" campus. News flash, it ain't your campus, you just go to school there.

Boze

Smith, in this video, you can hear Peterson say that he's in no danger of being silenced, so you can drop the argument that he's pretending that he will be.

Honestly, this man is an inspiration. I echo Rex Murphy: "A real professor, at last!"

6079_Smith_W

But I'm not the one complaining that this is a free speech issue. That would be you, and Magoo. As for Peterson, he certainly seems to put most of his focus on the left wing authoritarians who are allegedly trying to shut him up and force him to say things he doesn't want to.

I've been pointing out that he has steady speaking gigs, and his job, and is getting tens of thousands in donations monthly to keep making his videos.  So yeah, I know he's not going anywhere. My point is he's not going to jail or losing his job anytime soon.

And are you saying you don't think transgender people are real people?

If you want to talk about biology, why would you call them anomaly when intersex is as common as people with red hair?

Another biology question, why would you think the existence of trans and intersex people is in anyway incompatible with the existence of our species? Do you think that about gay and lesbian people too? Do I need to point out that there are trans people who have kids? In case you think that is the ultimate justification of our existence.

Why are you even going there? The point is people asking to be recognized as people. Laws like C-16 are about being able to get jobs, a place to rent, the freedom to go to the bathroom, about recognition of anti-trans violence.

As I have pointed out numerous times, no one is going to jail because because some boneheads have a chip on their shoulder about insulting language. But if this is just a free speech issue for you why are you doubling down on the worst aspects of anti-trans discrimination?

Boze

Why are you such a thick-headed putz?

Quote:
And are you saying you don't think transgender people are real people?

What in the actual fuck? What did I say that sounded like that?

Quote:
If you want to talk about biology, why would you call them anomaly when intersex is as common as people with red hair?

What the fuck does intersexuality have to do with transexuality? As for red hair, that's genetic and obviously inherited, but surely most trans people are NOT themselves the children of trans people.

Quote:
Another biology question, why would you think the existence of trans and intersex people is in anyway incompatible with the existence of our species? Do you think that about gay and lesbian people too? Do I need to point out that there are trans people who have kids? In case you think that is the ultimate justification of our existence.

You have a tough time reading, don't you? I said that gender and sex aligning for the vast majority of people being a matter of either socialization or coincidence would be incompatible with the existence of the species. But almost nobody seriously believes this. We know that in other animals, sexual behaviour is pretty much 100% biological and due to hormone exposure at critical periods of development - the same is true of humans. Since you bring up gays and lesbians, it seems reasonable to point out that this is almost certainly due to biology as well, not socialization.

Quote:
Why are you even going there? The point is people asking to be recognized as people. Laws like C-16 are about being able to get jobs, a place to rent, the freedom to go to the bathroom, about recognition of anti-trans violence.

I agree completely. I've only said a dozen times, C-16 isn't the problem. The problem is groups trying to shut down those they disagree with, and the fact that schools let them get away with it, and people become afraid to speak their minds, and you get all this other politically correct nonsense. I think I posted this earlier:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/gender-identity-debate-swirl...

Basically, if you are a doctor or a scientist who says "well, the research seems to show that of children who express a desire to transition, the vast majority of them become comfortable with their biological sex near the end of their teenage years, so let's keep that in mind when we are dispensing hormones and surgeries to anybody who expresses any transgender feelings," you will be accused of advocating for "conversion therapy" and called a bigot.

As you know well, free speech is under assault from the left under the guise of sensitivty and inclusion and social justice. Look at the derision with which free speech (often derided as "freeze peach") is spoken of in internet circles - it is almost treated as a right-wing cliche, something that sometimes stands in opposition to social progress and anti-discrimination. When people protest motion M-103 by drawing Mohammed, you can almost bet that most of those participating will be on the political right, while those condemning them will be on the left. Why? This didn't use to be the case.

Speaking of which - who's going to be drawing Mohammed this year?

6079_Smith_W

Well if it is just about free speech (and I am guessing you are again flipping back from #475), and if you have no problem with C-16 I find it odd that you'd jump on that biology/medical debate.

How does that in any way relate to your argument?

It is one thing say they should have the right to speak (and in fact Prof Farrow did speak, so that isn't the point). But you seem to be not only making those same arguments to dismiss transgender people, you are doing so while leaving out the fact it is not just based on people's "lived experience", but a good deal of scientific research as well - to the point that it is in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual.

And as for that trope about survival of the species. What hard science is that based on?

Intersex people are relevant because they are a biological (not simply a gender) example that the notion of a strict male/female binary is nonsense. And because they overlap with the trans community, and suffer much of the same discrimination.

But again, if we're dismissing some people as anomalies and not others, what is your definition? Hair colour? Left handedness? After all, it is only 20 times more common than transgenderism (though it also gets condemned as an abomination in the bible, and used to be beaten out of people).  Is that also something that people are just imagining, and will eventually get over?

In case you were wondering what the spirit behind C-16 (which you say you have no problem with) is, it is to combat transphobia. And a part of that is the narrative that transgenderism is not real, that people are just imagining it , and that they are just anomalies. That our status quo is more important that being inclusive. And that those who are trying to gain recognition for those rights and that inclusion are just left-wing authoritarians who are trying to clamp down on free speech.

Also worth considering if you are wondering why some people are angry enough that they would resort to disrupting talks, expecially in a society where they are attacked, discriminated against, murdered, and driven to suicide.

 

 

 

 

Boze

Quote:
It is one thing say they should have the right to speak (and in fact Prof Farrow did speak, so that isn't the point). But you seem to be not only making those same arguments to dismiss transgender people, you are doing so while leaving out the fact it is not just based on people's "lived experience", but a good deal of scientific research as well - to the point that it is in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual.

Who is dismissing transgender people here, and when you say that "it" is in the DSM, what exactly are you referring to?

Quote:
And as for that trope about survival of the species. What hard science is that based on?

I didn't realize that we were speaking ONLY in terms of hard science here. Of course, whenever you need to retreat there to question a claim that I've made, you're happy to do so.

How could humans have evolved as a species if we were only cisgendered and heterosexual by coincidence or socialization? I do not really believe that you contest this, you just don't like that I am saying it.

 

Quote:
Intersex people are relevant because they are a biological (not simply a gender) example that the notion of a strict male/female binary is nonsense. And because they overlap with the trans community, and suffer much of the same discrimination.

The vast majority of intersex people identify as male or female, not as some third sex. They don't suffer the same discrimination as trans people, they suffer different discrimination, most notably forced mutilation of their bodies during infancy. But aside from this, if the notion of a gender binary is falsified by the presence of intersex people , then it's something like 2.1 genders instead of 2. No one is talking about a "strict" gender binary here. I am just saying that you cannot force people to mirror others' internal identities back to them.

Quote:
But again, if we're dismissing some people as anomalies and not others, what is your definition? Hair colour? Left handedness? After all, it is only 20 times more common that transgenderism (though it also gets condemned as an abomination in the bible, and used to be beaten out of people).  Is that also something that people are just imagining, and will eventually get over?

Dude. Nobody here is talking about anyone "imagining" anything. Your continued inability to refrain from doing this is just pathetic.

You are right that the notion of "anomaly" is itself a social construct and that we should have respect for diversity (especially diversity of opinion). I am not sure what your point is supposed to be here. I do not care if "medicalizing" discourse is offensive.

Quote:
In case you were wondering what the spirit behind C-16 (which you say you have no problem with) is, it is to combat transphobia. And a part of that is the narrative that transgenderism is not real, that people are just imagining it , and that they are just anomalies. And that those who are trying to gain recognition for those rights and that inclusion are just left-wing authoritarians who are trying to clamp down on free speech.

You can gain inclusion and recognition for rights without attempting to silence dissenters. Please do not tell me that the left embraces dissent as much as it could. How many things are we not allowed to say on Babble?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Do I need to point out that there are trans people who have kids?

Heck, apparently there are even "non-binary" transpeople now.

Can anyone figure out what that's even supposed to mean?

Boze

Quote:
Also worth considering if you are wondering why some people are angry enough that they would resort to disrupting talks, expecially in a society where they are attacked, discriminated against, murdered, and driven to suicide.

I don't know if you realized this, but most of the people protesting are not trans. They are just using trans rights as an excuse to feel self-righteous.

6079_Smith_W

Gender dysphoria is in the DSM. And I think the doctors who deal with it have some experience with people deciding on a range of therapy and treatment, and changing their minds.

Dismissing it as an anomaly. Dismissing "lived experience" while at the same time cherrypicking and dismissing scientific evidence. Dismissing it as something some people get over, as if to invalidate it, and the medical approach to it. And dismissing as an affront trans people's perfectly reasonable  desire to have their gender recognized in speech. 

And given that there are plenty of people who manage to procreate, your bringing that up is frankly bizarre. It has nothing to do with not liking it; I laughed. I just don't see what your point is given that not only is a large percentage of the population willing to have heterosexual sex and procreate, there are plenty in the lesbian, gay and trans community who have kids by various means as well. And that hetero, cis gendered people represent sort of a majority? So what? What is your point?

And not everyone who supports C-16 is trying to silence dissenters. Actually those have shown up at Peterson's and others' events to do that are very small in number. Contrast that with Peterson's unsubstantiated claims about the law and its supporters and the university, and his warnings about authoritarianism, and comparisons to nazism and communism.

(edit)

Yes, magoo. non-binary trans people are people whose gender does not reflect the body they are in, but who are somewhere on the spectrum in between male and female.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yes, magoo. non-binary trans people are people whose gender does not reflect the body they are in, but who are somewhere on the spectrum in between male and female.

Isn't that amply described by the term "genderfluid"?   And genderfluid is never going to reflect someone's body, unless they have a penis and a vagina that appear and disappear periodically.

6079_Smith_W

If you prefer. I'm just answering your question about what that other term means.

Boze

Quote:
Gender dysphoria is in the DSM. And I think the doctors who deal with it have some experience with people deciding on a range of therapy and treatment, and changing their minds.

Isn't this at odds with your not-an-anomaly position? You can't have it both ways. If a condition is a disorder then it's an anomaly because that's part of the definition of a disorder.

In any case, yes, such doctors do, and Kenneth Zucker is one of the world's foremost such doctors, and they shut him down because he was successfully helping people adjust to their biological sex and opposed to hormone blockers for pre-pubescent children in the vast majority of cases.

When the DSM-5 came out, there was a disagreement between trans people as to whether or not it should be included. One camp said "this is wrong because it pathologizes our identity," and the other side says "it has to stay so that we can get coverage for the costs of medical transition." Neither side is wrong, because the DSM is not a scientific document. It is a book of constructs and categories that are, at best, informed by science.

Quote:
Dismissing it as an anomaly. Dismissing "lived experience" while at the same time cherrypicking and dismissing scientific evidence. Dismissing it as something some people get over, as if to invalidate it, and the medical approach to it. And dismissing as an affront trans people's perfectly reasonable  desire to have their gender recognized in speech.

Stop conflating trans people with non-binary people. The vast majority of trans people want to be referred to as "he" or "she." And it is NOT perfectly reasonable to ask people to recognize new classes of pronouns, if you know anything about word classes and how we produce speech.

Quote:
And given that there are plenty of people who manage to procreate, your bringing that up is frankly bizarre. It has nothing to do with not liking it; I laughed. I just don't see what your point is given that not only is a large percentage of the population willing to have heterosexual sex and procreate, there are plenty in the lesbian, gay and trans community who have kids by various means as well. And that hetero, cis gendered people represent sort of a majority? So what? What is your point?

I guess I was unclear. I'm saying that the fact that most people's gender identity matches their biological sex is biological, not caused by socialization. I am saying that the counter-claim, that cisgenderism is a social construct and that there is no need to raise children with the expectation that they will most likely turn out cisgendered and heterosexual and get married and have children, is *bunk.* I am asking you to imagine how such a species could have evolved, *before* we had things like language and clothing and social constructs, if our gender identity was something that is socialized.

Quote:
And not everyone who supports C-16 is trying to silence dissenters. Actually those have shown up at Peterson's and others' events to do that are very small in number. Contrast that with Peterson's unsubstantiated claims about the law and its supporters and the university, and his warnings about authoritarianism, and comparisons to nazism and communism.

I'm not talking about "everyone who supports C-16," because that includes myself. I'm talking about the wider politically correct culture, that are denouncing Peterson as being a transphobe.

Quote:
Yes, magoo. non-binary trans people are people whose gender does not reflect the body they are in, but who are somewhere on the spectrum in between male and female.

It's not a spectrum. It's a bi-modal distribution with a tiny number of outliers.

6079_Smith_W

Oh. I don't know. Maybe because people like fucking, and a good number of them like the penis in vagina version?

And look what popped up on facebook. Its the free speech bus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transphobic-free-speech-bus-anti-lgb...

As an aside, you do realize there are also people freaking out about the "cis" thing (I have read it on this site). Even moreso than you raising the question of why you should be required to call a person by their name. Which really, isn't a question of gender at all. Just in case we were stuck on the idea this was about gender pronouns.

And while gender dysphoria remains in the DSM, it is no longer classified as a mental illness or psychiatric condition.

And bimodal with a tiny number of outliers? Sure, if that's how you and your big posse of strictly he-she transpeople (whether they are anomalous, or change their minds) see it, I guess that is how you all see it.

But I see a very different picture when it comes to people and their gender identity and expression.

6079_Smith_W
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As an aside, you do realize there are also people freaking out about the "cis" thing (I have read it on this site).

Do you mean babblers suggesting that they don't care to call themselves "cis"-men or "cis"-women?

I also don't care to refer to myself as "two-armed" in order to equal some playing field between my (priveleged) self and an amputee.

6079_Smith_W

Clearly this guy knows what's going on, even if the rest of us are blissfully ignorant of the impending threat:

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/03/thousands-arrested-shariah-law-pass...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

While we're validating the "lived experiences" (read: beliefs) of the non-binary, genderqueer "otherkins", meet the trans-abled.

Quote:

Most of them are men. About half are in Germany and Switzerland, but he knows of a few in Canada. Most crave an amputation or paralysis, though he has interviewed one person who wants his penis removed. Another wants to be blind.

Many people, like One Hand Jason, arrange “accidents” to help achieve the goal. One dropped an incredibly heavy concrete block on his legs — an attempt to injure himself so bad an amputation would be necessary. But doctors saved the leg. He limps, but it’s not the disability he wanted.

It was not the disability he wanted.

 

6079_Smith_W

Nice,  Magoo. I'm sure that helps clear up the situation for anyone who was looking to reinforce what they already thought about this situation.

Personally, I have a 10 year old kid who has already been challenged for being in the wrong bathroom, even when she wasn't. So sorry if I don't have too much sympathy for the bruised egos of those who don't want to be forced into uttering the wrong words. And I don't really give a shit about these definitions and examples that seem designed only to show how weird people should be seen.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Swear to Gord, I didn't even go looking for this gem; it just popped up on the Star's web page.

Rachel Dolezal faces uncertain future after race scandal

Remember her?  The "trans-racial" former head of an NAACP chapter?

I guess she's doubling down.

Quote:
Last year, she legally changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo, a West African moniker that means “gift from the gods.” She made the change in part to give herself a better chance of landing work from employers who might not be interested in hiring Rachel Dolezal, a name she still intends to use as her public persona.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I tried to post this a few weeks ago, but it didn't show up.  Anyway, it's a pretty neat and concise summation of my attitude any more, whether to the "non-binary", or "otherkins" or "trans-racial" people and so on.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Fill your boots. Identify as a bird, for all I care. But at a certain point, expecting me to validate the "reality" that you believe you're living amounts to you masturbating using MY hand.

6079_Smith_W

Gee Magoo, I am sure you are an attractive fellow and all, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. In any case, if you want to reduce it to that, what is really failing the reality test here: transgenderism, which actually has not only a long cultural history, but scientific research to back it up?

... or Peterson's claims about the leftist, marxist  authoritarian boogeyman, who thus far is a no-show, and has yet to end his livelihood and cart him off to jail?

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/7207346-opinion-jordan-peterson-a-l...

I suppose the difference is he is not short of people willing to lend him a hand, as you say.

...and a buck or two for the cause.

As for those less inclined to fall for it, even one of the panelists who declined to attend the McMaster event said this.

'It's turning Peterson into a free-speech martyr, which I don't think he deserves.' - Dr. Philippa Carter, McMaster professor

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-president-calls-for-comm...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In any case, if you want to reduce it to that, what is really failing the reality test here: transgenderism, which actually has not only a long cultural history, but scientific research to back it up?

I'm not referring to transpeople.  I'm happy to support them for two reasons:

1.  whether they were born "male" but felt "female" or born "female" and felt "male", we at least agree that "male" and "female" actually exist (in contrast with the "chrono-gendered", "wolfkins" and other similar).

2.  at least one of their parents was either male or female (in contrast with "wolfkins" who lack a wolf parent, or Rachel Dolezal who lacks a black parent)

But I do find it kind of funny that two genders served humans fine for thousands of years, but now we seem to have not one, not two, not even three, but at least a dozen more "genders" in the last five years or so.

And we're not even done!  More are being discovered daily!  And as fast as narcissistic millenials can invent them, we're all supposed to believe in and respect them.  And along with them, anyone who believes that they're the weather, or who believe that their left hand belongs to someone else, or who insist that they're black, and get fake tans to prove it.

I honestly don't believe it's just a "slippery slope" argument to ask "what's next?".

 

6079_Smith_W

Well if the notion of a spectrum is too far out there, try the more traditional notions of three, four, or five:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_systems

http://theconversation.com/what-we-can-learn-from-an-indonesian-ethnicit...

And I don't think it is a slippery slope question to ask if it isn't your body (and no one is actually asking you to jerk them off) what is it to you?

 

Boze

Smith, that is exactly the point. My words aren't coming out of their mouths, they're coming out of mine. It isn't their body, it's mine. What's it to them?

You have an identity, and to a certain degree people mirror your identity back to you, i.e. they give you positive or negative feedback and you use that to help shape how you act and exist in the world. The argument seems to be, as far as I can grasp it, that cis people get their gender identity mirrored back to them automatically, and therefore, to not grant this to anybody, whatever their gender identity may be, is discrimination. I think that's silly.

And yes, I know that many people have a problem with "cis," and as you can probably guess, I don't care. It's a useful word, in some contexts, for referring to people who aren't trans. Nobody is forcing anybody else to use the word.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And I don't think it is a slippery slope question to ask if it isn't your body (and no one is actually asking you to jerk them off) what is it to you?

Pretty much the same as expecting me to endorse a God I don't believe in.

And for what it's worth, the analogy of masturbating themselves with my hand wasn't meant to be literal (that's pretty much what analogies are). 

It referred to me and the rest of us being expected to validate their narcissism for THEIR gratification.  If you still don't get that, let me know and I'll try again.

Or, just look again at the Dave photo.  Folk should be free to believe whatever they want to -- I believe that as a civil libertarian and also as a chill guy.  But conscripting the rest of us is just poor boundaries.

6079_Smith_W

Calling it narcissism and gratification?  What it makes me wonder is who the narcissist is here.

(and on that, if you are going to use a really coarse and demeaning and sexualized analogy, it is entirely fair to have it called out for what it is)

Sure people want to be treated with respect; that is a part of acceptance. But it is Peterson who raised that pronoun issue, and the notion that it was some sort of violation. And to repeat, so far his warnings, and his demonizing of the "radical left" have amounted to nothing. No one has forced him to say anything. There have been no legal or formal consequences for anything he has said.

If you watch some of the issues raised by others to him - that video shot at his open air rally -  they are far more critical things like violence, being refused housing, and other kinds of discrimination. But of course detractors focus on what an imposition it is to call someone by their name, because it is a way to ignore people being attacked, denied service, driven to suicide, and pretend that they are to blame for a law which does nothing but protect them from discrimination based on their gender.

Boze

Quote:

Sure people want to be treated with respect; that is a part of acceptance. But it is Peterson who raised that pronoun issue, and the notion that it was some sort of violation. And to repeat, so far his warnings, and his demonizing of the "radical left" have amounted to nothing. No one has forced him to say anything. There have been no legal or formal consequences for anything he has said.

If you watch some of the issues raised by others to him - that video shot at his open air rally -  they are far more critical things like violence, being refused housing, and other kinds of discrimination. But of course detractors focus on what an imposition it is to call someone by their name, because it is a way to ignore people being attacked, denied service, driven to suicide, and pretend that they are to blame for a law which does nothing but protect them from discrimination based on their gender.

Peterson agreed with those who brought up violence and substantive discrimination.

The timeline as I see it:

-Peterson makes videos about political correctness, including absurd demands for pronoun accommodation, echoing what many of us are already thinking and have been waiting for academics to stand up to
-Opponents emerge and demand that U of T discipline him if he does not retract his statements and take down the videos
-Rally at U of T where Peterson's detractors blare white noise, call him racist, transphobic, etc., basically proving Peterson's main point about the intolerance of social justice warriors
-U of T sends him letters encouraging him to stop talking about this stuff
-Peterson has more speaking engagements where he discusses the reaction to his rather tepid commentaries and the state of universities and western civilization generally.
-Peterson's opponents continue to call for his firing; Peterson continues to speak. The problem has not gone away.

It is true that there have not been any legal or formal consequences for anything that he has said. And, thank goodness for that, because he has not done anything wrong. People are allowed to oppose so-called human rights legislation in this country without being evil monsters. However, universities and other public institutions continue to prove Peterson's original point about political correctness being out of control. Lots of examples of that in this thread.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/03/16/free-speech-at-uni...

Quote:

The group planning the disruption call themselves Advocates for a Student Culture of Consent (ASCC). On a Facebook page they created they list their reasons for wanting the speech cancelled. The reasons all centred around the notion that because Robitaille had advocated on behalf of an alleged sex offender, Ghomeshi, anything she said, even her presence, could be traumatizing for those who had experienced sexual violence and anyone else sensitive to the issue.

In their words: “WLU’s choice to amplify (Robitaille’s) voice has caused harm and makes us feel unsafe, invalidated and not believed.”

6079_Smith_W

In other words, you agree then that it was Peterson who brought up the pronoun issue, even if you might not agree that his claims are complete crap.

And this isn't a case of alleged narcissists looking for gratification being to blame for all this.

At least not a transgendered narcissist, I mean..

Pages