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

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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:
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.

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.

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/

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.

[youtube]vMSmUzDt-7U[/youtube]

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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." [i]Neither side is wrong,[/i] because the DSM is not a scientific document. It is a book of constructs and categories that are, [i]at best,[/i] 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.

Here's Ivan Coyote. Not he. Not she. They.

https://www.ted.com/talks/ivan_coyote_why_we_need_gender_neutral_bathroo...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?".

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.

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.

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..