Jordan Peterson explaining how 'identity' isn't something you can impose on others...its a negotiated position

I liked what he said, whatever his beliefs may be in other areas. Just that the triple idea (sex, gender (identity), and social, interactive gender), rather thsn the simple sex/gender dichotomy has been talked about elsewhere. Seems quite common in academic feminism/philosophy/psychology and not all Judith Butler pomo nonsense. And reduces to the be nice and push down the conflict with sex and the conflict with social aspects (like not mentioning that a transwoman 'mother' can't chestfeed without major possibly harmful intervention not actually being female, but let's not mention all that! Or that we can spot a male, however they identify, or the many transwomen who not just look but act like men). Whereas with gay folks, the idea is treat me socially the basic way you did before you knew I was, and I don't require you to believe it's not a sin. Behaving decently to folks with a range of sexual orientations or a range of 'gender' presentations isn't the believe what you know isn't true and don't mention the facts mindfuck that TRAs require of their devotees and handmaidens.

That was an interesting watch and Petersen made some excellent points.

I also watched the super-polite Canadian TV debate with JP, Theryn Meyer and a Gender Studies academic from UoT a couple of links below. JP is impressively calm. The gender studies academic’ opening gambit was that biological sex does not exist. I suppose if your whole academic career is built on this pomo cobblers, you have to hold the line and repeat its founding tenets forcefully and often.

I like what he has to say.

I agree with Peterson on a lot about trans issues, but I don't see him as a friend of women.

I don't think he tries to be a friend of anybody. But that said, I think he adds positively to gender debates because he never argues against opportunity or against individual capability. He only argues large scale social effects. For example he'd argue why you see fewer women heading up Fortune 500 companies but he'd also be the last person to argue against any individual woman who did. The reverse if anything.

I agree with Peterson on a lot about trans issues, but I don't see him as a friend of women

I would assume Peterson supports equality of opportunity for women, education for women, women working or being promoted . He has spoken out against pornography (Yes. Young men: stop using pornography. There is nothing about it that is good)

Very good. I like the way he emphasises the fact that we are members of society and that's two way. Before he mentioned the 2 year old, I was completely relating what he was saying to many (not all) people with autism; the unawareness of others' thoughts and feelings and difficulty interacting in a two way manner at a deeper level - which is exactly the stage 2 year olds are at.

Also narcissism.

Yes I was actually shocked by that missy. How can someone say there's no such thing as biological sex?? Massive gaslighter, insanely deluded or woefully uneducated?

TRAs really have twisted language like barley sugar. It is impossible to communicate meaningfully with someone who argues that up means down.

He is borderline MRA, though. But then again, conservatives have long seen this identity politics nonsense coming.

Interesting point SomeDyke

Many years ago when I was a student a group of us signed up for mentor training for gay mens HIV Support at a local centre (something I knew next to zero about). The one thing I couldn't get my head around was the concept of MSM.

Now I'm much older I have a lot more understanding of the stigma and complexities surrounding the issue but at the time we all sat in the pub afterwards saying 'but aren't they just gay - I don't geddit?'

With hindsight I'm not sure exactly what I thought qualified me as a 19 year old straight female to do this but unlike Lily Madigan I realised after the first session I was not going to be much help to these men or be able to meet their emotional needs. If it was purely a companionship thing I would have done it but I'm sure my 'right on' student self was the last thing they needed.

Our gay male friend who invited us did continue the programme I recall so all was not wasted.

TLDR How I almost became a female LM

The second video- the man that says "there is no such thing as biological sex", even though I've heard it before, the level of stupidity shocks me everytime. Seriously how do these people think reproduction happens. The level of delusion makes me wince.

The first video of Peterson I saw was an unnamed segment on Facebook where he talks about speaking the truth, no matter how scared you are. Now that I know the reasons why he was saying it, makes the video clip even more powerful.

He is fighting for a fair and democratic society. He's not a feminist per se, but I'm of the opinion that no man can actually be a feminist anyway. He's worth listening to and - like a pp said - challenging yourself.

Yes great point, SomeDyke.

I was reading 'The Metaphysics of Gender' by Charlotte Witt (OUP, Studies in Feminist Philosophy). Which like a lot of this academic feminist stuff is fairly dense (but unlike Judith Butler not totally incomprehensible!). And the same basic separation talked about, I think, between biology/material reality (i.e sex, and what bits and bobs you have, for example), your 'inner' sense of who you are (which may or may not include a strong sense of 'gender identity'), and then your 'social gender' (which is all about how others treat you and where you fit in socially).

Trying to impose your inner sense on gender on others (i.e force them to treat you differently in terms of your social gender), and ignore biology in the process, really does begin to seem quite mad when you view it like that. Why should your personal, subjective, internal view of yourself override everything else?

Those who try to draw parallels with gay rights -- I'm reminded of one of the first uses I came across of the use of 'identify as'. In terms of men who had sex with other men (hence objectively would classify them as either gay or bi), yet they did not 'identify' as gay. But when it came to safer sex advice and the AIDS crisis, it was rightly realized that however they identified, their needs had to be addressed, hence the 'men who have sex with men' phrase appearing. Their subjective 'identity' (or refusal of one) was not allowed to override their own objective risks to their own health and that of others. Whereas TRAs would have us go totally the other way. It would be like ignoring the health risks for 'men who had sex with men', and calling anyone who protested that 'but they are putting themselves and others at risk if we do not address their actual behaviour' a nasty name.............

He's definitely worth watching. The way he frames his arguments is very compelling. I binge watched a load of his videos the other day.

That's interesting. I haven't seen enough of his interviews yet to make that call, but it's always helpful to have a different viewpoint to consider. In fact I'd never heard of him until I read this thread. I do think his stance has really helped me to be more assertive though. It's good to be unequivocal and unapologetic about The Emperor's New Clothes. Perhaps it's the fact that he is a man so has a less ingrained history of appeasement and people-pleasing (or maybe I'm just a wuss! ) In any case, I'm enjoying unpicking it and learning.

Exactly my position.

I agree with Peterson on a lot about trans issues, but I don't see him as a friend of women.

Yes. This is how I feel about him.

I agree with Peterson on a lot about trans issues, but I don't see him as a friend of women.

mooncup Thank you! That's my evening wrapped up.

I'm just marking place to watch this later.

@LangCleg - yes absolutely. That's it in a nutshell isn't it. The entitled expectation which comes from growing up with male privilege added to the narcissism which seemingly prevents either honest introspection or empathy with others' vulnerabilities.

I hate all of this.

SteelyPip - it's true, though, isn't it? TIMs/transwomen who would actually apply to work in a DV refuge, for example, disqualify themselves as suitable just by applying. They are the very ones who should never be employed anywhere near vulnerable women because they cannot perceive that those vulnerable women could possibly be harmed by their presence.

I love Peterson.

'It's a massive risk factor if a person cannot see other people as anything other than validation mechanisms'

So true and not just 'people', but if the story today is to be believed, a newborn baby too

Sounds great, will watch this later. Thanks