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

[mooncuplanding]

Love him or hate him, this is great at articulating the pysc issues around the trans agenda

I enjoyed this.

"The idea that your identity is a subjective whim...it's the philosophy of a poorly socialised two year old."

It is, isn't it? It's like when my toddlers used to hide their face behind their hands and I wasn't supposed to be able to see them anymore.

😂😂
And really pertinent around the construct of what identity actually is. That is, it's not something you get to fully decide, there are lots of influences and you can't just impose an identity on others, which is exactly what trans people often do, no negotiation, and hence our anger and reluctance to accept

Thanks for the link to that. I've just sat and watched a few of his videos and what a breath of fresh air. The one thing which is resonating with me is his explosion of the principle that everyone deserves respect. I hadn't really thought much about that before, but he's right in that people do NOT deserve respect unconditionally, it's something you earn and that's conferred upon you in response to your positive actions. I also liked the phrase "narcissistic power-grabbing" to describe the type of person who demands that their subjective position be respected and legislated for, when it's divorced from biological fact and material reality.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well, so just watch the vids and see for yourself.

There will always be a gap between the way your perceive yourself and the way others perceive you. (And obviously, a six foot bloke in a dress has a bigger gap than most).

Despite the best efforts of fools in power across the globe, you can't legislate for perception.

The people who cannot understand this, as we see with the TRAs, are the people who pose a risk to others. It's a massive risk factor if a person cannot see other people as anything other than validation mechanisms.

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

I'm adding that to my list of counters I will use at the next governors meeting.

steelypip

If you've not come across him before, be warned, you may lose hours of your life. The podcast with Sam Harris is so challenging, as is the ones with joe rogan.

All I can say is 100 hours later that I've been challenged.

'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

I love Peterson.

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.

@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.

I'm just marking place to watch this later.

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

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

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.

Exactly my position.

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.

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.

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.............

Yes great point, SomeDyke.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.