Anyone up to speed with the Lindsay Shepherd case (the Canadian TA)?

[ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen]

For those who aren't Lindsay is a 20-something TA at a Canadian University. Last November she was teaching a class on pronouns and, during the class, showed a 5 minute clip of a debate (that had been broadcast on Canadian TV) that featured a panel of speakers discussing gender pronouns in the context of trans issues.

The panel consisted of a few people including a trans-man, and Jordan Peterson.

After the class a student mentioned the clip to someone who reported it to the local LGBT group on campus who complained to the faculty who hauled her into a disciplinary meeting, which she had the presence of mind to record.

The meeting is 40 minutes long but I implore you to listen: not only does it give an insight into the Orwellian mindset of these two male professors, but their comments are absolutely dripping with sexism:

I'd be interested to know what others make of this case.

[FireFartingDuck]

TransE undoubtedly it's not a silver bullet, and error will persist in some form whatever we do. But it is a hell of a lot better than people jettisoning it in favour of an anti-intellectual snobbery that encourages everyone to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".

[Coyoacan]

I'm just shocked at the appalling ignorance of the lecturer who thought that grammar was laid down in law and not subject to debate. I presume it most be far away from his area of study, but still the level of ignorance is staggering.

Some forty odd years ago I was having a coffee in the University of Toronto and overheard some students raving about a professor who had said "the best way to deal with Marx is to ignore him". Maybe the best way to deal with universities is to realise that there are some appalling mediocre professors in them.

As for left and right, I'm totally given up on those terms. It's like they take a sackful of ideas and stick some in one bag and some in another and you are supposed to buy one entire bag and then fight to death to defend all the ideas contained in it.

[FlyTipper]

I basically agree with you FireFart and is why I feel the lecturers in the clip have a point (if not directly in relation to trans pronouns). Shepherd was not teaching critical thinking, not contextualising; she was presenting a videoed debate without comment in a tutorial with the vague notion of challenging preconceptions. That may be fine for many topics, but certain ones (like the Holocaust), there is a requirement that there be thought and preparation to how the subject is broached and dissected.
TransMRA - there is a problem with reason and critical thinking, in that you can use it to validate almost every position I haven't thought about this before and what you say makes complete sense. I'm especially reminded of the champions of 'critical thinking' on alt-right fora.

[kesstrel]

Speakingwoman

As to all perspectives being valid in a uni - isn't that sort of what I pay my taxes for? I don't know or care about postmodernists but I do know people are supposed to disagree with each other in a University

The thing is, "all perspectives being valid" in a uni doesn't mean people disagreeing with each other. Here's the definition of "valid":

(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
"a valid criticism"
synonyms: well founded, sound, well grounded, reasonable, rational, logical, justifiable, defensible, defendable, supportable, sustainable, maintainable, workable, arguable, able to hold water, plausible, telling, viable, bona fide;
legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law.
"a valid contract correct, authentic,

And post-modernism is important because in humanities departments in universities, it is hugely influential, and has arguably taken the place of actually teaching students how to think, or how to consider evidence. Post-modernist scholars argue that science is just another biased way of looking at the world, for example, and should not be 'privileged' over other ways of seeing things.

This is a good book on the subject: www.amazon.co.uk/Higher-Superstition-Academic-Quarrels-Science/dp/0801857074/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&keywords=higher%20superstition&ie=UTF8&qid=1530168625&sr=1-1&tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21

[kesstrel]

Sorry, posted too soon.

So going by the definition, "all perspectives are valid" would be "all perspectives are reasonable, justifiable, supportable" which is what postmodernists teach.

Please don't get me wrong, though: I'm on Lindsay Shepherd's side here. She was probably only 22 when this happened to her, after four years at university being thoroughly indoctrinated with postmodernist viewpoints. It must have been a total shock to her to find herself under attack like this by her own academic supervisor.

[speakingwoman]

She only used valid because the man used it.

Next time you’re weeping in a room under attack by two men undergoing a bizarre extra judicial process check the recording of your attempted answers against a dictionary and judge yourself for accuracy.

[Dragoncake]

It's like they take a sackful of ideas and stick some in one bag and some in another and you are supposed to buy one entire bag and then fight to death to defend all the ideas contained in it.

Have to agree with you here.

[kesstrel]

Sorry, Speaking - I didn't mean to annoy you. Just trying to put another perspective forward.

[speakingwoman]

I'm sorry too! You do have a point.
cup of tea time.

[kesstrel]

Speaking Thanks. Mine's a coffee.

[speakingwoman]

:)