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

Ereshkigal

That's insane.
How did this happen?
Biologist states physical differences between men and women and bloke says it's a nazi ideology. WTF?!

And the girl who security escorted out was going on about how "brainwashed" "even the women" were, or something! A better description of a TRA handmaiden really!

So she says on average men are taller than women, right?

And a whole of the students walk out calling her a fascist?!

We going to end up in 30 years time with people running the country who genuinely don't know how babies are made?

Is biology being that erased?

RedToothBrush
Your feelings and perspective make perfect sense.
It's like the Trans widow. Suddenly expected to tell people "yeah I have a wife now".
It's so selfish.
(Sorry I'm sure it's far more complex than your trans sister is selfish...)

Dissimilitude
I watched the podcast with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Very interesting and appreciate the link to it. I learnt a lot however they still miss the impact of the patriarchy over millennia imo - it's still very male-centric - they need additional input

I was a postdoc at Portland State for two years in the Biology department. I'm not at all surprised. I love Portland, it's a fantastic city to live in but even 18 years ago when I was there it was the most right on place in the world.

Erishkigal
That video is incredible. It should be shared everywhere. I suppose though most people would not understand what it was all about as they’re not aware of the issues.
I love the lecturer’s speech at the end as well.
Thanks for posting.

The argument you hear from evolutionary biologists is that asking whether it’s nature or nurture is something of a false dichotomy - socialisation / culture itself has very strong biological and evolutionary underpinnings.

That’s not to say there’s nothing malleable about the “software higher up the stack” - but that the outcomes of that cultural software are largely biased by its biological underpinnings.

Aaargh... Loathe him and you don't have to be a TRA to distrust the man and his simplistic arguments which, incidentally, could just as easily be used against women by his disproportionately male reportedly huge audience.

When did black people negotiate the way they are seen in society? or;
When did women negotiate the way they are socialised?

Really agree with the above post about Sam Harris - I used to listen to his podcast a lot (inc. the one with Peterson, which was interesting but a bit infuriating) and I really enjoy the way he structures his arguments, and how he thinks, I find him challenging and provocative, and I agree with him on lots of stuff. I wish he would bother to do some critical thinking about feminism, though. He's really weak on women's issues, a bit too contented to have the testicles of objectivity and his podcast is an unapologetic sausage fest.

I haven't listened to it for a while, haven't had time, but I might make some time this week. I might read some Peterson too. Contrary to what the naysayers like to say about regulars here being in echo chambers, I quite like reading and listening to opposing views mostly only when they're thought provoking, though, not just people yelling on the internet.

Yippee
I have a similar view as you. I think JB is an incredibly deep thinker and I keep finding some amazing lectures he's done about all sorts of subjects. I think his argumentation is anything but simplistic. Having said that, I don't agree with everything he says but that's the whole point of debate.
I don't know if people on this thread heard about the case of Lindsay Shepherd, a young Canadian teaching assistant who showed some students a clip including JB about the C16 bill, and was "disciplined" by the University. She recorded what was said here:

I don't understand why people call JB a bigot/ woman hater. I get that his gig is not women's rights but one of the things he seems to be FOR is a transformation of masculinity - which would perhaps indirectly impact positively on women's rights.

I didn't mean in this thread so much, yippee, I was thinking more of the men who like to rock up here and tell us that we are in an echo chamber, are incapable of rational thought and all our opinions can be discounted because they're so extremely limited and biased. They seem to feel that it's practically their duty to educate us.

I think they have the idea that we live in some women only commune somewhere and never get exposed to What Men Think

I dipped into that Peterson thread, but was having a work week from hell and didn't have the energy to wiegh in. It went a bit weird too, didn't it?

I too find JP, BS & SH challenging and enjoy the intellectual stimulation. The problem for me is there is no inclusion of the role of patriarchy by any of them - it's as though they don't see that huge blind spot and don't invite radfem feminists to engage with them. So women are still represented as male-identified women (i.e. how men conceive women and the women themselves looking to men for validation) as opposed to women-identified women.

Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson. The host is that person who hosted that awful video mocking the transwoman called David but he is ok here.

To me both Peterson and Shepherd sound like sane, rational people I would like to meet even if I didn't agree with them on everything.

Ive only just seen this, and not rtft. However- fab! I love how he doesn't mince his words. 'I don't care who you are, Just don't be annoying'.

I also find Peterson to have some good points. But then I have a major problem with gender being a social construct having read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and not finding anything I disagreed with.

Here Cordelia Fine's book is always mentioned but I found that weak and woolly in the face of the evolutionary psychology evidence.

So for my money Peterson - like Pinker - is not a feminist but points out biological and psychological realities and suggests people recognise that things like the pay gap have deeper underpinnings than patriarchy. The questions he asks are pertinent: about Scandicci countries with high levels of equality and yet gender-based trends emerge (like boys preferring STEM subjects etc).

Cathy Newman was ridiculous and made me embarrassed to watch her try to "gotcha" him.

JP has talked about the Scandinavian experiment as some sort of evidence that equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome. But the first proposition is the one that really matters is it not? You give men and women equal opportunities and watch how the pieces fall? Does it really matter if the outcome is not equal?

I never considered myself a feminist, but I suddenly find myself on MN and with a terfy username (which I changed from my original by the way) once I realized what's at stake with the GRA. I have to confess I don't even really understand what "gender is a social construct" means?

There's a really long youtube video of JP and Camille Paglia in conversation, I might go and check that out.

FrannyAndZooeyGlass The questions he asks are pertinent: about Scandicci countries with high levels of equality and yet gender-based trends emerge (like boys preferring STEM subjects etc).

& terfsRus

Re Scandinavian study - their conclusions are flawed imo as they are assuming it's a equal playing field but the reality is much different - just look at the DV stats that are horrendous across Scandinavia. So until the ways in which patriarchy skew decisions about careers etc for women and girls are collated, these conclusions are very flawed as they ignore the elephant in the room. That's my problem with all of these commentators and approaches - they miss out the patriarchy.