Jordan Peterson is bad news!

377 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The notion that if an instructor doesn't explicitly say so, some of the things taught in class might not be true, or have no evidence to back them up, is simply ridiculous. What do you think a university IS?

I think a university IS -- or should be -- the place where young adults learn to decide for themselves whether something is true, or whether there is evidence to back it up. 

Isn't that what a university IS?

What part of one man, on a CBC talk show, claiming he won't call anyone "xir" is so totally harmful that the university was supposed to follow it with "Don't believe that man!  Here's what to believe!  We'll spoon-feed it to you just this one time!"

If Paikin had interviewed a flat-earther, would everyone have wrung their hands and clutched their pearls?  Would Shepherd have been hauled in to meet the Triumvirate because 19 year olds might get sucked into believing that the world is like a big flat checkerboard in space??  Or because someone made fun of "round earthers" who don't have to walk on their hands if they visit Melbourne?

6079_Smith_W

No, actually. I think you are describing the internet. Why should students pay their hard earned money to be taught things that "might" be true. Indeed what is university accreditation for if it is where students learn things that might or might not be true, or that they get to decide?

And it isn't just a matter of opinion if someone claims that the law might land him in jail, when there no evidence to that effect.

Again, the comparison was made in that secret tape with Charles Murray's racist ideas about race and intelligence which had not been subject to peer review, but which students might accept as true because of his degree and his reputation.

It is no different with Peterson's claims in that video that using a singular "they" is "dangerous" and based on a political agenda. A student with a few years under their belt might take it with a grain of salt. A first year might assume that because someone has "Dr." in front of his name he actually knows what he is talking about, even though neither linguistics nor law is his field of study.

No slight against freedom of speech, and people saying whatever nonsense they think might be true, but that is what speaker's corner is for. University is for teaching information that meets academic standards and peer review. I wouldn't be very pleased to have doctors decide for themselves what they think cures cancer in medical school. Or to have a similar situation in any accredited school, for that matter.

You want flat earth U? Send me $5,000. I'd be glad to send you the material.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Why should students pay their hard earned money to be taught things that "might" be true. Indeed what is university accreditation for if it is where students learn things that might or might not be true, or that they get to decide?

Surely, in some fields of study (like math) students might expect to be spoon-fed the truth.  And maybe geography, or accounting.  But all of them?  We have truth for all of them?

Why shouldn't those truths just be the law of the land then?  If evolution is more than just a shower thought, why not show our commitment to it legally and socially?  Why would we allow any student to go away from public education believing that a magical man created everything in six days, 6000 years ago?

Quote:
It is no different with Peterson's claims in that video that using a singular "they" is "dangerous" and based on a political agenda.

Is the idea that someone born in the last 30 years is a "they" or a "xim" or whatever based on science?  If so, please tell us all more, because all I've seen is that it's based on some individuals' feelings.

Quote:
No slight against freedom of speech, and people saying whatever nonsense they think might be true

Are you throwing a sop to the non-gendered there?

6079_Smith_W

Yes it is actually. Though maybe now that they have corrected the DSM and gender dysphoria is no longer an illness they should reclassify it as an mental illness of bigots and haters.
And it has a cultural foundation too.
But in this context it is about linguistics and law, areas Peterson is not an expert in.
Clearly, if he considers the fact languages evolve dangerous.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
But in this context it is about linguistics and law, areas Peterson is not an expert in.
Clearly, if he considers the fact languages evolve dangerous.

Well, I seem to recall a term coined probably by the Bad People -- the "death tax" -- and mostly I recall people losing their shit over it, as though languages cannot evolve dangerous.  Seems Peterson isn't the only one worried about where it's all going.

But at any rate, "xir" is not "language, evolving".  Any biologist will tell you that things don't "evolve" that fast.

Here's a graph of google searches for "non-gendered".  Google wouldn't show anything prior to Jan. 1, 2004, but to be honest I doubt there were many such searches.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=non-gendered

Again, homosexuality goes back to antiquity.  And transgendered people can look back to early mentions of "two-spirited" people.

But non-gendered isn't some reality that's been around since before the mechanical clock.  That's why there are no 70 year olds saying "Yes, yes!  I'm non-gendered and finally I can say so!".

Having "no gender" was invented in our lifetime, Smith.  Lucky us.

Badriya

 

Ms. Shepherd showed the clip in an English grammar class which was part of the Communications course she was teaching.  The topic of the class was how the structure of a language can influence the way a society views things.  (This is the poorly understood and much-maligned Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.)  More specifically, she was trying to show that gender-specific pronouns can shape people’s ideas about gender, and used the Peterson clip to show how this could cause controversies.  (Some languages do not have gender-specific pronouns and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis would hold that they would view gender differently.)

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/21/laurier-apologizes-to-teaching-assistant-who-aired-clip-of-gender-pronoun-debate.html

brookmere

6079_Smith_W wrote:
University is for teaching information that meets academic standards and peer review.

Of course that's nonsense. No creative work is subject to "academic standards and peer review" (except in places like North Korea) and universities have courses in literature, art, theatre, etc.

Here's a real life example for you. When I was in university I took a film studies course and one of the films we saw was "Truimph of the Will" which you've probably heard of. The prof said she included it because it was great film making. She didn't go into the background, which likely wasn't necessary since my generation was familiar with it.

And students today can't be exposed to two minutes of Jordan Peterson talking with Steve Paikin?

6079_Smith_W

What does this have to do with "creative work"?

I am talking about his baseless claim that C-16 compels speech. That it has the potential to put him in jail.

His claim that changing language is dangerous, that this concerns made up words by people with a political agenda.

His claim that race sensitivity is "political opinion".

Just to state a couple. This isn't "The Rites of Spring"; it is actually fairly clear stuff -  in some cases claims about legal, linguistic, and cultural issues that have no basis in fact, and in other cases are false characterizing that seems more based demonizing and paranoia; it certainly isn't scholarship. And it really isn't his field of study.

He talks about a political agenda. Well what political agenda is that? When pressed on it he equated it with Marxism and Maoism. I wonder what a political scientist would make of that professional opinion.

 

6079_Smith_W

Another take on it from Wilfred Laurier teacher Steve Wilcox, concerning the invitation of Faith Goldy:

The university has said that they're committed to diversity and equity. And I think that, at a certain point ... their responsibility to creating a campus that embraces diversity and equity means saying 'no' to certain speakers in very rare instances."
"By hosting this speaker ... we must ask ourselves what the consequences are," Wilcox wrote. "What message are we sending to students of colour when we host a speaker who denies, diminishes, or denigrates their humanity?"

...

As for why the group might move from one campus to another, Wilcox argued that the alt-right are "particularly interested in university and college campuses."

"Whenever you speak on a university campus, it legitimizes both the speaker and the topic," he said. "It suggests that there's merit, even a degree of scholarly merit, that's involved with what's being presented."

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/done-and-done-1.4712114/free-speec...

That would be the flip side of making sure that material presented in university meets those standards.
 

Cody87

From Smith's link above.

Faith Goldy had been invited by the Laurier Society for Open Inquiry, a group Shepherd helped create in the wake of her dispute with faculty. She was to be the first in the Society's "Unpopular Opinions Speaker Series."

Surely Rambukkana, Pimlott, and Joel did not foresee these consequences of their actions.

6079_Smith_W

Just as I expect the university thought their actions would make this all go away.

But as Wilcox points out this was coming in some form one way or the other.  Right wing and racist elements have been using this faux free speech argument to push their way on to campuses for some time now.

And a number of the articles posted here point out that students are already being targetted by racist, homophobic and sexist elements. So it didn't start with that either. If anything the instructors were responding to that climate themselves. Another thing that makes this "what complaint" line even more ignorant.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This is kind of weird, because what we are talking about is a supervisor advising a TA about how to be careful about presenting problematic information to the class. Seems simple, right? Not something that should require a formal complaint regimen, or sworn in witnesses. Or really, any excuse at all, to my mind.

You know that their were four people in that meeting, three of them to question Shepherd, who was unaccompanied. Why did Shepherd's supervisor think he needed help in this meeting (which was held under false pretences)? You also know the university violated it's own rules by not giving her notice of a disciplinary meeting and not telling her that she could bring an advocate? You know all this, right?

And what's the 'faux free speech argument'? Are you saying that speech is only free is you happen to agree with what is said? All other arguments for free speech are 'faux'?

 

6079_Smith_W

Are you even following the conversation, Rev? Or are you just not interested? Because having to wave things under your nose for you to even see it is kind of tiring.

The latest example was just posted.

Rev Pesky

Pertinent to the issue:

Why Lindsay Shepherd is suing Wilfrid Laurier University

Graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is suing my university, Wilfrid Laurier. She’s seeking damages related to prejudicial treatment perpetrated against her by some members of the campus community.

Many Canadians who’ve read the news support her suit. In large part it’s because seven months ago they heard for themselves that now-famous audio recording. It revealed two Laurier profs and an administrator cruelly bullying Lindsay to the point of tears, insisting she renounce her belief that universities should promote open debate.

...I can answer that. I’m one of the few professors at Laurier to publicly support Lindsay throughout her ordeal and we’ve talked about this at length.

...A “dignity culture” has been replaced by a “victimhood culture,” and Lindsay doesn’t want to be associated with the latter.

That’s why she refused to sue after she was called to an illegally constituted interrogation, was told students in her tutorial had complained about her, and that by showing a clip from public TV she had committed a crime.

That’s why she refused to sue following an independent investigation that found her three interrogators had misled her about the complaint.

That’s why she refused to sue when certain professors from her program published an open letter saying they supported the two colleagues who had falsely accused her. She refused when she was ridiculed in class in front of her peers. And she refused when her department chair insulted her in the national media.

...Why then did Lindsay finally feel pushed to take legal action? Because the university allowed an internal action to proceed against her. And, upon threat of severe academic penalty, they forbade her to discuss the details publicly.

...Through this entire affair, Lindsay has tried to play by the “old” rules of the dignity culture. She bore the insults of others with a thick skin and was willing to fight her own battles. But with this last straw, she’s realized that to survive a contest with the university she must play by its rules, the new rules.

Ken Burch

6079_Smith_W wrote:

What does this have to do with "creative work"?

I am talking about his baseless claim that C-16 compels speech. That it has the potential to put him in jail.

His claim that changing language is dangerous, that this concerns made up words by people with a political agenda.

His claim that race sensitivity is "political opinion".

Just to state a couple. This isn't "The Rites of Spring"; it is actually fairly clear stuff -  in some cases claims about legal, linguistic, and cultural issues that have no basis in fact, and in other cases are false characterizing that seems more based demonizing and paranoia; it certainly isn't scholarship. And it really isn't his field of study.

He talks about a political agenda. Well what political agenda is that? When pressed on it he equated it with Marxism and Maoism. I wonder what a political scientist would make of that professional opinion.

 

Especially since he also equates "Marxism", a philosophy which isn't, in and of itself, to blame for anything, with "Marxism-Leninism", a perversion of Marx's ideas which has as much to do with what Marx proposed as "four legs good, two legs good", has in common with "four legs good, two legs better".
 

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pertinent to the issue:

Why Lindsay Shepherd is suing Wilfrid Laurier University

Graduate student Lindsay Shepherd is suing my university, Wilfrid Laurier. She’s seeking damages related to prejudicial treatment perpetrated against her by some members of the campus community.

Many Canadians who’ve read the news support her suit. In large part it’s because seven months ago they heard for themselves that now-famous audio recording. It revealed two Laurier profs and an administrator cruelly bullying Lindsay to the point of tears, insisting she renounce her belief that universities should promote open debate.

...I can answer that. I’m one of the few professors at Laurier to publicly support Lindsay throughout her ordeal and we’ve talked about this at length.

...A “dignity culture” has been replaced by a “victimhood culture,” and Lindsay doesn’t want to be associated with the latter.

That’s why she refused to sue after she was called to an illegally constituted interrogation, was told students in her tutorial had complained about her, and that by showing a clip from public TV she had committed a crime.

That’s why she refused to sue following an independent investigation that found her three interrogators had misled her about the complaint.

That’s why she refused to sue when certain professors from her program published an open letter saying they supported the two colleagues who had falsely accused her. She refused when she was ridiculed in class in front of her peers. And she refused when her department chair insulted her in the national media.

...Why then did Lindsay finally feel pushed to take legal action? Because the university allowed an internal action to proceed against her. And, upon threat of severe academic penalty, they forbade her to discuss the details publicly.

...Through this entire affair, Lindsay has tried to play by the “old” rules of the dignity culture. She bore the insults of others with a thick skin and was willing to fight her own battles. But with this last straw, she’s realized that to survive a contest with the university she must play by its rules, the new rules.

 

That sums up the situation nicely. Thanks.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

 

I am not sure if you can say that "Marxism is a philosophy you can't blame for anything". If you try to take its dinner away, a lion will kill you. You can't say the law of the jungle will wither away, and you can't deny the lion the private property of her lunch. You can't impose Marxism on animals, so therefore you can't impose it on human beings.
 

6079_Smith_W

Ruling on “the admissibility of expert evidence on false confessions” in January 2012, Manitoba Justice Shawn Greenberg ruled three-quarters of Peterson’s evidence was inadmissible and questioned his credibility as an expert witness.

“Dr. Peterson has no experience” assessing “the reliability of confessions,” Justice Greenberg wrote in his ruling.

“In fact, he acknowledges that he has never seen a police confession and did not view the video of the confession in this case.”

https://pressprogress.ca/jordan-peterson-was-an-expert-witness-in-a-murd...
 

cco

progressive17 wrote:

 

I am not sure if you can say that "Marxism is a philosophy you can't blame for anything". If you try to take its dinner away, a lion will kill you. You can't say the law of the jungle will wither away, and you can't deny the lion the private property of her lunch. You can't impose Marxism on animals, so therefore you can't impose it on human beings.
 

Lions are good with progressive taxation as long as the marginal rate's below 54%, though, right? I mean, I know I go to the animal kingdom for all my political philosophy.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I would rather trust observations of innocent animals than the words of people.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

progressive17 wrote:

I would rather trust observations of innocent animals than the words of people.

I have 5 cats, and I love them dearly, but I would never consider asking them for advice on politics. Their brains just aren't evolved for that purpose.

Rev Pesky

progressive17 wrote:

I would rather trust observations of innocent animals than the words of people.

To which Michael Moriarity replied:

I have 5 cats, and I love them dearly, but I would never consider asking them for advice on politics. Their brains just aren't evolved for that purpose.​

I don't have cats, but I've seen them. They know something, but they're not letting on. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

I don't have cats, but I've seen them. They know something, but they're not letting on. 

I have to admit that they often seem to know things I don't, but I doubt their secrets are political.

cco

progressive17 wrote:

I would rather trust observations of innocent animals than the words of people.

An interesting choice of words. Lions aren't "innocent" in the sense that they never hurt anyone; they're "innocent" because they're acknowledged not to have the brainpower to know that hurting people is wrong. In other words, the very fact wild animals can be described as "innocent" is an acknowledgement that they're capable of less, and hence held to a lesser standard, than human beings.

So if we can expect human beings to have better reasoning capabilities than animals -- and the law certainly does -- perhaps "Lions don't practice Marxism, therefore it'll never work for humans, and Jordan Peterson is right to try to save us from it" isn't the ironclad argument you think it is.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I have to admit that they often seem to know things I don't, but I doubt their secrets are political.

Decades ago I saw a cartoon I loved and was never able to find again. It showed a cat staring intently into a blank corner of a room, with a thought bubble above its head that was also blank.

Pondering

There is a difference between debating and declaring. People can declare things in debates that are not necessarily true when the debate is non-academic but in an academic setting it is necessary to differenciate between opinion and fact. A professor should never declare opinion as fact. 

He doesn't have to agree with gender neutral pronouns to use them when necessary or to simply not use pronouns at all for that individual. Just use the person's name. Student identities should be respected unless there is some reason beyond "I don't want to". That issue is separate from debating whether or not the change in pronouns should be adopted into formal English.  That doesn't really seem to be a debate that should be held in an English grammar class. 

I think the material the teacher's assistant presented was not inappropriate in the larger sense but it wasn't her call because it was not part of the syllabus. I also think professors should be teaching their own classes because at the University level students should have teachers that have the freedom to introduce controversial issues. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Animals would not slaughter 100,000,000 people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did.

RANGER
Rev Pesky

The above link posted by RANGER is infected. Mods should remove link, and ban poster. 

Rev Pesky

Actually we do have a gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. Why can't we use that?

JKR

What's wrong with "they?"

6079_Smith_W

Of course the real funny thing is that Peterson has taken legislation that is about people being refused work, a place to live, and service, and about recognizing crimes against them as based on discrimination, and made it all about him being the victim because he thinks he is going to jail for refusing to use certain words.

If that was the case we would have seen people rotting in prison decades ago for refusing to say another "made up" word - "Ms.", because that is how long this law has been in place. It has not happened.

In fact the protection for gender identity and expression has been in place at the provincial level for some time. No gulags yet.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

He doesn't have to agree with gender neutral pronouns to use them when necessary

This is a part of his argument. By using gender neutral terms when you don't agree with them or believe in them you're still validating that belief. It's like being forced to apologize when you don't mean it.

Quote:
or to simply not use pronouns at all for that individual. Just use the person's name.

That works.

voice of the damned

Slate has a rather negative write-up on Peterson's recent appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

https://tinyurl.com/y74scblx

From the little I've seen of him, I'd agree with the writer's "mad libs" characterization of his speaking style. He might know a lot about psychology, but he seems really out of his depths when he gets into sociopolitical topics, just repeating the same canned phrases that have no meaning within their disciplines of origin, and basically just function as everyday insults outside of them.

 

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Peterson seems to be way too emotional for someone who is trying to talk about philosophy. As he rants and raves, he unconsciously describes himself.

He is trying to tell men to be individualists and take responsibility, but he lives in a coddled university environment, and grew up in a wealthy family. He was able to spend 5 years writing a book. Who but a Little Lord Fauntleroy could do that? 

He is incapable of expounding a strong philosophical basis for his commandments, as he seems to have no sense or idea of what those would be. I doubt that he even understands monetarism, let alone the deeper subjects which could unleash Free Will.

Now he seems to have a cult following. He is lapping it up, which is the exact opposite of what he should do. He is making millions from it, which is also the exact opposite of what a philosopher should want to do. Like all the other philosophical and religious and political losers, he is preaching self-sacrifice. Which is not the name of the game. 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
What's wrong with "they?"

"They" is most commonly understood to be plural.  Someone will be here soon with some insignificant small exceptions, but realistically, most people understand "they" to refer to a a group of people of which they're not a part.

What about Rev's idea though?

"It" has always been singular and non-gendered.  Objections?

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What's wrong with "they?"

"They" is most commonly understood to be plural.  Someone will be here soon with some insignificant small exceptions, but realistically, most people understand "they" to refer to a a group of people of which they're not a part.

What about Rev's idea though?

"It" has always been singular and non-gendered.  Objections?

 

It's hard to believe that two smart people like you and Rev could be unaware of the negative connotations associated in English with the application of the pronoun "it" to a person. Therefore, you are just making mischief and don't really deserve a serious answer.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

How about A for nominative (he or she), B for accusative and dative (him or her), and C for genetive (his or her). This would cut down on text. Or maybe we could just use symbols like ==> and &:>>. George Orwell was definitely on to something. He must be doing ballet in his grave.

Ken Burch

progressive17 wrote:

Animals would not slaughter 100,000,000 people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did.

None of which was actually caused by Marxism(especially no Hitler's deeds, since he was an avowed anti-Marxist and anti-leftists who killed millions of social democrats, anarchists, socialists and large-and-small-c communists).  The main reason Stalin and Mao were able to do what they did was the use of the undemocratic, unaccountable "vanguard party" structure and the concept of "democratic centralism". 

The original goal of workers' control of the means of production, an objective which remains both perfectly legitimate and transcendently positive, is not the cause of their actions.

And, frankly, even if there had been no "left" at all in the first half of the 20th Century, Stalin and Mao were the sort of figures who would have some OTHER pretext to win the will cooperation of others in a program of slaughter.  They could just as easily have emerged out of a capitalist project, or out of any of the various forms of right-wing nationalism, the tradition from which Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler emerged.

It's not as though there'd have been no slaughter if only no one had sought a radically better world, if only the entire human race had accepted the political and economic status quo of 1914 as "the end of history".

Rev Pesky

Michael Moriarity wrote:

It's hard to believe that two smart people like you and Rev could be unaware of the negative connotations associated in English with the application of the pronoun "it" to a person. Therefore, you are just making mischief and don't really deserve a serious answer.

Most of that negative connotation has to do with the fact that it denies a gender identity to the person whom is being referenced. In this case, that is precisely the outcome desired, so I don't think it's that much of a stretch. In fact 'it' is used very often to refer to other animals...for instance:

The deer strode up to the fence. Then it jumped over and continued on it's journey. Meanwhile, the lion that had been stalking the deer approached. It too leapt over the fence, and contined on it's quest for a meal.

I dont' have an objection to 'them' or 'they', even though they are plural. The context will tell the reader whether it's meant as plural or singular. It does mean watching sentence structure. 

I have been using 'them' and 'they' in that fashion for years. I should mention that it was a progressive who has been the only person that gave me grief for that usage. Presumably these days it's more acceptable.

After eating the deer, the lion relaxed. Then it belched. Deer  breath...

6079_Smith_W

progressive17 wrote:

George Orwell was definitely on to something. He must be doing ballet in his grave.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Read Politics and the English Language if you want to know what he thought about static language and adherence to rules. And about the power and utility of words.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

And consider that he spent the war working in a constructed language -  Basic English.

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

Can't say what he would make of the gender question, but I doubt he'd be in a faint about doing what made sense with the language. It is, after all, just a tool for communication, and if it is not serving that purpose, change it so it does.

 

 

Pondering

The English language evolves with the times. We do not speak old English. 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/he-or-she-versus-they

  • You can use the plural pronouns ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’ etc., despite the fact that, technically, they are referring back to a singular noun:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in their findings.

Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.

Gender neutral language makes sense. It doesn't serve any useful purpose. Evolution dictates that we get rid of gendered language. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Actually, I find using 'they' works quite well in most contexts.

I do think it sucks that the laws, for the most part, say 'he'. Granted that most criminals are men, because of testosterone or something. However women should have an equal opportunity at crime as in every other aspect of life.

MegB

Rev Pesky wrote:

Actually we do have a gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. Why can't we use that?

It? Okay, you're done here. 

6079_Smith_W

A bit of a tangent, but here is someone who studies language talking about changing grammar to fit the needs of people, in this case activists. How it most closely relates to this conversation is touched on in the first five minutes, but the whole thing is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=634&v=AToOLMXBILQ

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

In the old days, you would say, "Mind if I smoke?" People became what they are now, that is, beastly, inconsiderate pieces of shit, and now they have to put NO SMOKING signs up everywhere.

Now, one could say, "What do you like to be referred to as?" Surely this would solve all problems, and we could close this thread.

Rev Pesky was extremely annoying as he refused to get the point. There is just no point in him being on this board, as there is nothing you can say to get through to him.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

A bit of a tangent, but here is someone who studies language talking about changing grammar to fit the needs of people, in this case activists. How it most closely relates to this conversation is touched on in the first five minutes, but the whole thing is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=634&v=AToOLMXBILQ

What a great video. I have to go out but I will watch it again or google the topic. Not sure how it connects to this topic yet but chock full of valuable insights. 

6079_Smith_W

For one, the concept that language can be altered and used in limitless ways, contrary to the notion that changing the rules is "dangerous", to use Peterson's word.

Pondering

Meg took action. I think the rabble tradition is not to continue criticizing a member who can read but not respond to criticisms. 

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

What about Rev's idea though?

"It" has always been singular and non-gendered.  Objections?

We don't use "it" for human beings.  By suggestting "it" is an acceptable pronoun for non-binary people, you would strip them of humanity.

You're not stupid, so what's going on?

Mr. Magoo

I wasn't suggesting we all switch.  I've seen humans referred to as "it" plenty of times on babble, and it always makes me cringe.  But I was curious what the objection would be, especially in the context of the continued assertion that "language can and does change".

Pages