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

Cross edited.

As we already discussed upthread, the prevailing opinion seems to be there is nothing the university can do to enforce this opinion, and there has been no formal complaint. I do agree he has violated the spirit of the code.

As to whether anything he has done is actionable, well how many HR complaints have gone to court over refusal to call a woman "Ms."? I think if he does wind up in front of a tribunal it will be his choice.

The legislation is already there without C-16. He hasn't said anything actionable that I am aware of, although he has displayed both astonishing biases against a number of groups, and a similar misunderstanding of how rights protection works.

So I am not surprised the university made the statement - likely to make it clear they don't appreciate the really insulting things he is saying. I don't see that they have put themselves at any risk other than being seen as bolstering his straw argument. He can't do anything to them any more than they can do anything to him, as far as I can see.

As for anyone bringing a complaint, first they would have to have grounds, then they would have to find a tribunal willing to indulge the matter. And I think some might be disappointed that it probably won't wind up with a courtroom martyrdom.

I have no problem with gender identity and gender expression being things that you cannot fire someone for, or discriminate against them for, as I understand discrimination. The question seems to be, what constitutes discrimination?

If Professor Peterson has done anything illegal, then we have a big problem on our hands, whether he is punished in the form of fines or whatever. If employers seek to discipline employees just to ensure that they won't be held responsible, that's a problem.

If it is illegal for academics to question the legitimacy of non-binary identites, we have a big problem on our hands. Gender is a complicated thing, and no one perspective is more valid than any other.

If it is illegal for academics to refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns, we have a big problem on our hands.

If it is illegal for teachers to refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns, we have a big problem on our hands.

To the extent that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, doesn't speak their mind for fear of professional or legal sanction, we have a big problem on our hands.

No disrespect intended to any "non-binary" person that happens to be reading this. I do not intend to deny your human rights. I do however defend the right to question the validity of any claims made about gender.

i think peterson is taking up this case precisely because he is a tenured prof.  He's said a couple time, he's "privileged" in that regard, and others who might have the same concerns are probably not as lucky.

in any case, the first debate happened today so i'm looking forward to seeing that. 

and for the record, of course i support having trans people  protected from violence and discrimination.  the only place of argument here is : can the government set the agenda and dictate with consequences what words i choose?  we're also disagreeing on whether or not tbill 16 even imposes that requirement i suppose....

Might I suggest again that the problematic term is "gender expression"?

I'm not saying it must be removed.  But would some concrete clarification be unreasonable?

Can someone just tell us what that does cover, and what it doesn't?

Specifically, if it does not and can not and will not hold sway over pronouns then that's great news, and Peterson is clearly out to lunch.  But I'd like to hear for real that it won't.  If the answer is "we'll need to wait and see" then that pretty much implies that Peterson may, in fact, be right.

Quote:

Doesn't say in there that it doesn't mean that, so I guess those of you in reverse onus land

What does "reverse onus land" mean in this context?

I totally get that if I, as an individual, say "the moon is made of green cheese; prove me wrong" that's poor logic.

But is there actually no onus on our laws to be clear about what they do and do not cover?

We seem to feel it's important for the law to be clear on things like what "criticism of Israel" or "reasonable privacy" mean.  Why not this?

milo204 wrote:

i think peterson is taking up this case precisely because he is a tenured prof.  He's said a couple time, he's "privileged" in that regard, and others who might have the same concerns are probably not as lucky.

in any case, the first debate happened today so i'm looking forward to seeing that.

I have professors who have told me exactly what that. They don't have tenure and can't risk sticking their necks out to publicly support Peterson, or to publicly oppose PC nonsense, because there are ideologues lurking about who want enemies and would just love to take on a prof that they could isolate and bring up on a bogus charge of racism or transphobia. One prof I am thinking of in particular has dealt with allegations of this kind of stuff in the past and none of it has ever stuck, because the vast majority of people who know this prof know that it's bullshit. This prof teaches developmental psychology. I have another prof, who teaches physiology of behaviour. One of the topics covered in our class is physiology of sexual behaviour and parenting behaviour. I have overheard some of the students discussing how the material is transphobic and cisnormative, because it assumes that there are real physiological differences in the brains of men and women, and that deviations from this are "aberrations." Which is, as far as I can tell, factually the case. I don't believe anything will come of it, but these kinds of questions are going to come up in increasing frequency, and it makes me very nervous about the possibilities for a meaningful career in academic psychology, because I'm not inclined to mince words for the sake of political correctness. Jordan Peterson made a great point in his debate today, that gender identity is a bi-modal distribution, with a few tiny exceptions, and that it is emphatically NOT a spectrum. Try explaining this point in a university today - that the idea of gender as a spectrum is complete hogwash - and see how long it takes you to end up in hot water.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

From the Ontario Human Rights Commission:

Quote:

Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/gender-identity-and-gender-expression-brochure

Doesn't say in there that it doesn't mean that, so I guess those of you in reverse onus land will have to remain vigilant and keep your toothbrushes packed on the strong likelihood that they'll be coming for you based on those two words.

Here is how I would expect sane jurists to interpret that. Non-discrimination on the basis of gender expression, if gender expression includes pronoun choice, would mean that you can't fire somebody just because they ask to be referred to with a gender-neutral pronoun. I totally support this. I am 100% on board with this and I think most people would agree.

Here is how I expect it to be interpreted, given how some people have been reacting to this. Non-discrimination will include your right to dictate what pronouns others must use to refer to you. And, may even include cover situations where somebody goes out of their way to avoid using pronouns for such a person, but uses pronouns for others. I can't support that. I can't support the idea that people MUST go along with this non-binary stuff.

Well, people have been waiting for a prominent academic to step up and take aim at this horseshit.

swallow wrote:

Ms. Peterson has her fans, certainly. 

No fucking kidding.

And Magoo, do I really need to explain what reverse onus means in this context?

Peterson and his believers want to play the martyr to the cause of entitled jerkdom, fine.

But in the 40 years this legislation has protected all of us from discrimination, and on matters of conscience, no one has been penalized for not saying words they refuse to speak.

You think this is somehow different than protection for sex or race because you find some aspects of gender challenging? Well I am sorry but it is on you to prove this is something more than paranoia and grandstanding.

That means you wait, and I expect it is going to be a long wait.

Of damaging his own reputation? Sure. But no law did that; it is his own behaviour.

Of losing his job? We have been through this already. If you think so then ante up.

And Boze, you said you were waiting for a prominent academic to stand up and challenge the horseshit? Two of the pointed out Peterson's misunderstanding of the law at a panel which was held today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/university-of-toronto-profe...

Gee, why didn't you say so before I mentioned it?

Chrsitie Blatchford was actually right in this case. It isn't about free speech, much as Peterson wants to pretend that it is:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-if-gender-...

And you might want to note that she did the very thing, in print, that Peterson claims is going to have the law after him. And she explicitly drew attention to the fact she did it.

That may make her more of a grandstander than Peterson, who when asked the direct question, just sidestepped it (see article below).

So I guess the clock is ticking and we'll wait to see if she gets hauled off to the gulags, right?

And Vice's coverage also had some interesting perspective:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/anti-pc-prof-continues-war-on-gender-neut...

Boze wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Of damaging his own reputation? Sure. But no law did that; it is his own behaviour.

Of losing his job? We have been through this already. If you think so then ante up.

And Boze, you said you were waiting for a prominent academic to stand up and challenge the horseshit? Two of the pointed out Peterson's misunderstanding of the law at a panel which was held today:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/university-of-toronto-profe...

I watched the panel. Did you? I thought they did a great job of misrepresenting his points, and not addressing his substantive concerns, instead choosing to focus on details like whether jail time will or will not be involved.

 

1. Jail time is essential to Peterson's claim of authoritarianism.  So, yes, it matters.

2. I dunno.  I saw Peterson argue for the first 15 minutes about gender essentialism.  He didn't even deal with pronouns.  Just made the audience go through a show and tell and then claim that it supports the idea that men and women are different.

3.  Brenda Cossman gave a detailed break-down of what C16 changes (which is purely federal law), what it doesn't, and the ORHC (which is completely different).  Peterson cited anonymous lawyers, which is not worth the paper he was looking at.  Apparently some nameless lawyers hating human rights tribunals and calling them kangaroo courts is an acceptable form of debate.  Really?

4. Peterson was extremely emotional and angry.  Had a woman acted out the way he did, her credibility would have been shattered.  It was something to watch.

I don't know how anybody can watch that and think that Peterson wasn't the more level-headed, despite all that he's been subjected to for merely expressing a perfectly valid opinion. That's really what political correctness is about: punishing people for expressing the wrong opinion.

Pookie, jail time is not essential to his claim, which, in my view, was demonstrably shown immediately after he began publishing his lectures against political correctness. He was called "racist" and "transphobic." What did he say that was racist? What did he say that was transphobic? The point is that the supporters of "political correctness" will brook no dissent. Criticizing the PC game marks you as an enemy. And if you're an enemy, you're a bigot, and if you're a bigot, well, we don't have to address the substance of your claims - or, even better, we can say that even debating with you could be seen to do harm. This is one of Peterson's greatest points: you shouldn't be worrying about the consequences of your speech. You should just speak what you believe to be the truth, and take it on faith that this will produce the best outcomes. That's essential to his, and my, conception of free speech. We're all in pursuit of truth as the highest virtue.

But no, jail time is not essential to his claim. It is enough if teachers, professors, etc. cannot speak openly for fear of retribution.

On to Blatchford's article:

Quote:

(Bryson’s official profile on the UBC site uses the pronoun “they” to refer to her, as in, “Throughout Mary’s 27 years at UBC, they have served in many senior administrative roles…” I take from this that “they” is her preferred pronoun, but I decline to use it.)

I have never admired Blatchford as much as I do right now. This attitude is the correct one. Spit in the face of this perverse horseshit. No one is saying she's going to be hauled off to the gulags. But let's wait and see what the reaction from so-called "polite society" is. Note that she's not exactly in the same position as a teacher or a professor who one of these entitled little shitbags can go to their student advocate over and claim that she's infringing on somebody's imaginary rights.

Quote:

She began by immediately denouncing Peterson, comparing him to the late Philippe Rushton (or, as Bryson spelled it, “Philip”), another psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario who made controversial links between the brain sizes of the three major races and concluded that Orientals (Asians, as they would now be called) were smarter than Whites and Whites smarter than Blacks.

In her opening written statement, Bryson quoted from David Suzuki’s opening remarks at the 1989 debate between the two men: “I do not want to be here. I do not want to dignify this man and his ideas in public debate.”

I have never disdained David Suzuki as much as I do right now (even though I am old enough to remember that event). He was entirely wrong. You don't deal with false ideas by refusing to engage with them.

Quote:

She continued throughout to refer to Peterson as “this man” who was making “knowledge claims as a professor” without “peer-reviewed scholarship”, at one point declared that “the goal of reducing inequality” has “always been the fundamental goal of education” and in her closing remarks suggested the U of T ought to consider “an apology for any damages to the right of safety and the right to humanity on the part of trans and gender-diverse people at the university.”

An apology would be an absolute disgrace. Nobody is made less safe by a frank discussion of impolitic topics. What a fucking baby. And the goal of education is not "reducing inequality." It is expanding minds and producing educated individuals.

This is a grand perversion of egalitarianism and of compassionate impulses, and the left is not well-served by adopting it.

Quote:

Cossman began by congratulating “all those faculty and students who are boycotting today’s event” and pronouncing absence as “also a very important form of speech.”

This is proof that Brenda Cossman is an idiot. Not speaking is not "a very important form of speech." What a contemptible attitude!

Quote:

“Because people matter…This at the end of the day is about people. It’s about trans and gender and non-binary people. These are our children, our siblings, our nieces, our nephews, these are our friends, our neighbours, our colleagues, our lawyers, our carpenters, our teachers.

“How bloody hard is it to simply treat these people with respect and dignity? Because all human rights are about is respect and dignity.

“Throwing a little kindness on the top, that would be even better.”

This is a load of garbage. The question is, of course, WHAT is dignity? WHAT is respect? Nobody can tell me why dignity and respect requires acquiescence to somebody else's notions of what gender is. 

And by the way...if anybody is offended by anything I've written - please remember, IT'S JUST AN OPINION.

Boze wrote:

I have never admired Blatchford as much as I do right now. This attitude is the correct one. Spit in the face of this perverse horseshit.

Boze, you are free to disagree. Refering to transgendered people and their identity as perverse? And saying we should spit in the face of their request for respect?

That crosses a line.

If this is some reference to what you see as nothing but an imposition on your freedom, doesn't matter; you should still  think twice about using a word that has for centuries been a smear against LGBT people. It really doesn't help your argument that yours is a reasonable position.

pookie wrote:

I'm not offended by what you wrote.  I just think it's hilariously OTT.  Using words like "contemptible" to criticize people who don't feel like engaging in debate, calling a very moderate and reasonable presenter (Cossman) "idiotic" for making that point, and, most telling, denouncing as "garbage" her plea for empathy tells me everything I need to know about where you are coming from.

It is absolutely contemptible to congratulate people for choosing to boycott a discussion because it's offensive to even enter into the discussion. I can think of few more contemptible positions to take than that.[/quote]

And yeah, it's garbage to make a plea for empathy when empathy isn't the issue. You get tolerance, not acceptance, by default. Tolerance ought to be enough. You want acceptance? Make your case. Appealing to empathy, as though acceptance ought to be the default, is garbage.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze, you are free to disagree. Refering to transgendered people and their identity as perverse? And saying we should spit in the face of their request for respect?

That crosses a line.

If this is some reference to what you see as nothing but an imposition on your freedom, doesn't matter; you should still  think twice about using a word that has for centuries been a smear against LGBT people. It really doesn't help your argument that yours is a reasonable position.

I don't know what word you are talking about. Oh, perversion? That's a reference to the idea that people should alter their fucking pronoun usage, which is as habitual as their preposition usage, so as not to misgender people who are, by definition, misgendered by biology.

Oh, that's been a smear against LGBT people for centuries? Don't care and don't see why anyone should care. I'm being insensitive for a reason here.

I appreciate Peterson's anger. The PC warriors are intent on using calls for civility and accusations of bigotry to denounce opinions they don't like. Well, you reap what you sow. We are fast approaching a time when accusations such as racist and sexist will be simply brushed off with the derision that they deserve. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze wrote:

I appreciate Peterson's anger. The PC warriors are intent on using calls for civility and accusations of bigotry to denounce opinions they don't like. Well, you reap what you sow. We are fast approaching a time when accusations such as racist and sexist will be simply brushed off with the derision that they deserve. 

Fast approaching?

 We are already there; always have been. And it isn't just brushing off, it is personal attack, vandalism and violence. Sometimes in organized campaigns.

Why do you think this law was made in the first place? So that it could be all about your freedom of speech?

Today is the transgender day of remembrance. There's a reason the law was made, and it's a valid one. C-16 isn't the problem. Human rights tribunals, really, are the problem.

Nah, the problem is that "discrimination" is not clearly defined.

pookie wrote:

Boze wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze wrote:

I appreciate Peterson's anger. The PC warriors are intent on using calls for civility and accusations of bigotry to denounce opinions they don't like. Well, you reap what you sow. We are fast approaching a time when accusations such as racist and sexist will be simply brushed off with the derision that they deserve. 

Fast approaching?

 We are already there; always have been. And it isn't just brushing off, it is personal attack, vandalism and violence. Sometimes in organized campaigns.

Why do you think this law was made in the first place? So that it could be all about your freedom of speech?

Today is the transgender day of remembrance. There's a reason the law was made, and it's a valid one. C-16 isn't the problem. Human rights tribunals, really, are the problem.

Nah, the problem is that "discrimination" is not clearly defined.

That's not what Peterson is saying.  He is deliberately stoking fears that refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns will land you in jail under the Criminal Code. 

Peterson does believe that C-16 specifically is a problem, but you'd have to be daft to think that he's "deliberately stoking fears that refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns will land you in jail under the Criminal Code."

I mean, it would be interesting to see if Bryson would take Peterson up on his offer to have a debate specifically about what gender is, since he says he would stack his knowledge of the peer reviewed literature up against hers any day. Of course, she won't, because she's a pathetic coward.

So. If Peterson's claims are entirely without merit...what is the nature of the offense taken to his claims??

Quote:

I know Cossman pointed out that in Ontario all one has to do is either use "they" or call a person by name (or presumably "that person"). But I it is too bad she didn't clarify in her explanation about enforcing speech that this isn't like an oath where one has to say "God" even if one might not want to. There are plenty of ways around it if one is not looking to run afoul of the law.

Was it not this conversation where somebody agreed that refusing to use pronouns at all in a situation where pronouns are being used for everyone else could be considered discrimination? Anyway, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but that's not really the point. The point is that the law is privileging some views of what gender is over others. The view that this is all a load of hogwash is basically subject to censorship. And if you happen to hold the view that trans-trenders are seriously deluded and in need of a good therapist? Good luck buddy.

My reaction to being asked to refer to someone with a non-standard pronoun:

Boze wrote:

pookie wrote:

Boze wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze wrote:

I appreciate Peterson's anger. The PC warriors are intent on using calls for civility and accusations of bigotry to denounce opinions they don't like. Well, you reap what you sow. We are fast approaching a time when accusations such as racist and sexist will be simply brushed off with the derision that they deserve. 

Fast approaching?

 We are already there; always have been. And it isn't just brushing off, it is personal attack, vandalism and violence. Sometimes in organized campaigns.

Why do you think this law was made in the first place? So that it could be all about your freedom of speech?

Today is the transgender day of remembrance. There's a reason the law was made, and it's a valid one. C-16 isn't the problem. Human rights tribunals, really, are the problem.

Nah, the problem is that "discrimination" is not clearly defined.

That's not what Peterson is saying.  He is deliberately stoking fears that refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns will land you in jail under the Criminal Code. 

Peterson does believe that C-16 specifically is a problem, but you'd have to be daft to think that he's "deliberately stoking fears that refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns will land you in jail under the Criminal Code."

ETA:

Actually, never mind. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Boze wrote:

Was it not this conversation where somebody agreed that refusing to use pronouns at all in a situation where pronouns are being used for everyone else could be considered discrimination?

Who said that?

Whether someone did or not is immaterial. Cossman pointed out that calling someone by name, or using any workaround so as not to call them by the WRONG pronoun works. But again, I seriously doubt anything is going to happen To Christie Blatchford because she refused to do that.

And Peterson had an opportunity to bring some of the evidence to this debate. He did not.

Evidence of what? 

As I see it, Peterson is the one airing what are basically political opinions and being told that his opinions are so unacceptable as to constitute abuse and/or a danger to some students' freedoms, etc.

Sineed wrote:

Unlike other protected grounds under Human Rights legislation, we are now protecting a person's *sense* of what they are, rather than what they actually are. Some of you will protest, but a person's gender identity *is* who they really are. So a man who says he feels like a woman inside automatically loses his male privilege, should be called "she," and be given the keys to the women's locker room.

If a man says he "feels like a woman," how does he know? If a woman says she "feels like a man," how does she know? Fact is, there is not a shred of evidence for a biological basis for wanting to present oneself in accordance with the stereotypes of behaviour and dress for the opposite sex.

Someone who knows more about this that me can correct, but I believe what is being protected is the freedom from discrimination based on gender, and that it will be considered as an aggravating factor in criminal cases.

The law isn't concerned with how one's gender is determined. As for the notion that it is all arbitrary, I believe Dr. Bryson pointed out that there is a body of research that validates transgenderism. No, people don't just decide to be genderless one day, and a dog the next.

And as for the notion that this will have creepy men breaking into women's washrooms and safe spaces, Cossman pointed out that all of these rignts and protections are weighed off against each other.

I agree with you that locker rooms and washrooms are on the front line of this issue; North Carolina springs to mind. I just think you are grossly misinterpreting. As for what the law is going to do, the case you posted upthread came to nothing at all. So no, people won't necessarily be able to force themselves into any places they want because of this.

Sineed wrote:

Boze wrote:

I mean, it would be interesting to see if Bryson would take Peterson up on his offer to have a debate specifically about what gender is, since he says he would stack his knowledge of the peer reviewed literature up against hers any day.

This is a debate I would like to see. After all, we are codifying into law ethereal concepts like "gender identity" and "gender expression," without any clear definition of these. To illustrate, here are the definitions from the Ontario Human Rights Commission:

Quote:

Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum....

Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender.

Unlike other protected grounds under Human Rights legislation, we are now protecting a person's *sense* of what they are, rather than what they actually are. Some of you will protest, but a person's gender identity *is* who they really are. So a man who says he feels like a woman inside automatically loses his male privilege, should be called "she," and be given the keys to the women's locker room.

If a man says he "feels like a woman," how does he know? If a woman says she "feels like a man," how does she know? Fact is, there is not a shred of evidence for a biological basis for wanting to present oneself in accordance with the stereotypes of behaviour and dress for the opposite sex.

Sineed, I am taking your observations to extend beyond gender pronoun use.  Which, FTR, I am not sure I agree with the OHRC's take on.  

So, I don't take issue with the difficulty of the categorization as you describe.

But, how is this different from faith or creed?  You do realize it is equally subjective, yes?  And it can, in fact, change over time and remain protected against discrmination?  In fact, so can sexual orientation, at least in terms of how it is manifested in a person's behaviour.  I know women who have idenfitied as gay and then straight and then gay again.

The point is whether any of these identities are valid grounds for subjecting people to less favourable treatment in employment, education or accommodation. That's what human rights is about.  Again, not getting into gender neutral pronouns specifically, because your doubts would seem to extend to recognizing gender expression/identity as a protected ground, period.

Sexual assault victims speak out against Washington's transgender policy

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/25/sexual-assault-victims-speak-out-again...

Quote:

The policies, which went into effect Dec. 26, grant individuals full access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other gender-specific facilities in accordance with their chosen gender identity instead of their anatomical sex.

But already,Simon and the other victims feel their stories have fallen on deaf ears, and they’re being portrayed in the public as “fearmongers.”

“Over and over again, women are told your abuse is not important, it’s not important to fund, it’s not important to protect. This is just one more way for us to know that our abuse doesn’t matter, that we’re not protected,” Simon said.

I'll post just a couple of examples that are local (for me, Toronto). Like this:

University of Toronto closes transgender bathrooms after peeping attacks

Quote:

The University of Toronto has decided to close two  of its Transgender bathrooms after two male students were caught peeping into  stalls where women were showering in order to take pictures of them with their cell phones.

The two incidents of voyeurism were reported five days apart from each other.

Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be transgender in order to assault women in shelter

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/15/a-sex-predators-sick-deception

Quote:

Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — has attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

Christopher Hambrook attacked women in women's shelters by claiming to be Jessica. If you google "men in women's bathrooms attacks," you can find lots more examples.

Quote:

Public washrooms are just that: public. This means that you do not get to decide whom you share them with. I would like to remind you that everyone, regardless of their gender identity or presentation, needs to pee.

The problem can be solved in a way that doesn't trample on anybody's gender presentation by making the men's room gender neutral. That way, women can be safe, and everybody's gender identity is respected. And gender identity issues aside, the women's bathroom tends to be more crowded because women take longer to pee. We don't need more people in there.

swallow wrote:

Men are smarter than women, Peterson says (using fancier words). Wow. That's seriously fucked up. I hope everyone will at least agree on that point. 

Peterson is a trait psychologist. "Intellect" in this sense is a measurable personality trait, which some groups will score higher on, on average, than others. It is not synonymous with intelligence. It is a sub-aspect of trait "Openness to Experience," which is one of the Big Five personality traits (the others being Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism). Technically, what Peterson said is an empirical fact.

It is equally a fact that women are, on average, more agreeable than men, and more neurotic (again, using the technical definition of these terms in trait psychology).

Inability to discuss these things due to people's reactions and misunderstandings of psychology (not to mention statistics) would, I assume, be one of Peterson's major gripes against political correctness. I know it's one of mine.