Jordan Peterson in Cambridge - a student's objection

[Wilderspin]

I'm a postgrad student at Cambridge University (and semi-regular on FWR but this is my 'Cambridge' username). Recently, Jordan Peterson came to speak at the Cambridge Union, which is not the student union but a separate society which hosts debates and talks from a variety of speakers. I saw Peterson's talk. It was not about trans issues - as far as I recollect, trans people weren't mentioned at all, although he did briefly discuss his views on innate differences between men and women in response to a question from the audience.

In response, we have this article by Tom Cleere, which also appeared in the print version of the student newspaper: www.varsity.co.uk/opinion/16480

A highlight for you:

Let us suspend an analysis of freedom of speech and consider the tangible effects of such an invitation. It is one thing to host someone with views which which the audience may strongly disagree. It is an entirely different thing to host someone who poses a threat to the safety and wellbeing of students. In the case of Peterson, this invitation presented a potential and unacceptable threat to the safety and wellbeing of Cambridge’s trans community.

I do not wish to speak for the ways in which Peterson’s popularity at the Union might have affected trans students and members of our University.

Actually, let's not suspend analysis of free speech, because it's bloody important. And saying that Peterson is a threat to 'safety and wellbeing,' but then refusing to explain what is meant by this? Utterly nonsensical.

Tom Cleere also seems to make the argument that by disagreeing with the ideology behind the 'non-binary' phenomenon, you are somehow denying the people who believe in it their personhood, which is utterly bizarre. Surely even for people who believe in gender identity, gender isn't what makes you a person.

I don't agree with everything Jordan Peterson says, but it was interesting to hear him speak all the same. Nobody else was obliged to - in fact, not everyone who wanted to was able to get into the building! I can't imagine how fragile some people must be if not even hearing views that go against their own, but simply knowing that they are being expressed elsewhere in the university, somehow means that they are 'unsafe.' It seems to go against the idea of a university education, really.

Yes. Couldn't say it better myself. If students are that fragile they really don't belong at university.

Oh ffs, Jordan Peterson is at times a pain in the ass with his unreflected self-righteousness (no Jordan, I do not have a natural inclination to be caring, just cause I have a vagina and not as much testosterone as some guy) but calling him a threat to anyone is outright crazy.

They're not fragile though. They're bloody nasty. And they don't behave like this because they feel unsafe. They do it to try and control others. But they still don't belong at university, their closed minds incapable of critical thought show they are not cut out for academia.

he did briefly discuss his views on innate differences between men and women in response to a question from the audience.

And no comment on how his opinions threaten the safety of natal women, of course? Double bloody standards.

Why are we supposed to take everything on the chin? I'd almost understand if the philosophy were universally applied, but the fact that the shit slung at women is just par for the course drives me mad.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we should treat natal women with kid gloves like they're made of glass too. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy (preaching to the choir again, I know!).

Noqont The impression I get from a lot of trans-supportive allies is that they genuinely believe the things we say and do really do mess trans people up. Not an excuse, but from the ally side I do still believe there are plenty who are genuinely trying to help people...not that I will stop fighting them, just that I think it's a mistake to attribute everything to malice where lack of critical thought will do.

When did people talking about controversial topics become an issue of safety and well-being?
It drives me nuts that this trope is wheeled out every time they want to justify no platforming or otherwise shutting down debate.

Peterson holds some vile views.

If students can’t deal with that, and give him a jolly good grilling at the Q and A after, I despair.

Not a no platforming, not a protest, not threats and social media flouncing. Engage with the idea, go to the talk and then rip into him (metaphorically) with debate afterwards.

To be honest I don't really know what his views are because I can't make out what he's on about half the time. But if the menfolk of Cambridge are so volatile that they can be to moved to violence by a windbag like Peterson then we really are in the shit.

just that I think it's a mistake to attribute everything to malice where lack of critical thought will do.

Fair enough. I guess they are all different people. No doubt there are many different reasons that explain why they behave in the way that they do.

Noqont - yes, many TRAs use their claims of being ultra-fragile & super-oppressed to cover for their hateful abusiveness. But a lot of young people today seem to legitimately see themselves this way - & most of them are not crybullies. Many are not even trans (at least not yet, though many are currently "non-binary").

A fundamental shift seems to have occurred in the way many young people in the English-speaking West, particularly those privileged enough to attend university, see themselves (both as individuals & in relation to others) & the world at large. This shift goes hand in hand with a sea change in the way many young people like Cleere view ideas/thinking, speech/words, identity/personhood, human rights, biology, reality & so on.

These shifts/sea changes & the distorted beliefs they lead to are very bizarre. But I fear what's happening goes much deeper & is more prevalent than the crybullying tactics of some particularly odious, loudmouth MRA miscreants & rapscallions.

I think this is a topic for another thread, another time.

Noqont I think in retrospect I jumped on you a little too hard. There are deffo people for whom a 'trans' identity is just a convenient cover for a total lack of empathy for anyone but themselves. And you're right to be frustrated, so I'm sorry for the tone policing.

Oh no stress maniac. I'm not offended! It's a good thing to hear different points of view.

But I fear what's happening goes much deeper & is more prevalent than the crybullying tactics of some particularly odious, loudmouth MRA miscreants & rapscallions.

This kind of stuff got Trump elected. If it continues, and particularly if his opponents have nothing to say beyond "him evil, we good", it'll get him elected again.

(I realise I'm a broken record in this.)

Let us suspend an analysis of freedom of speech

Framing it as if it's even an option. Idiot.

nauticant - by "this kind of stuff" do you mean the kinds of thinking & behavior among (some) young people that I've observed & remarked on here? Or do you mean the way I've characterized the trends I've observed, & my fears about them?

I like to write colorfully & used both "crybullying" & the archaic "rapscallion" on purpose here, because I think they're good descriptors that say a lot, & I like how they sound. But if these terms, or anything else I said, sound like a right-wing dog whistle to you, please tell me! Because I'm definitely NOT a Trump supporter. At all. And I sure don't want to do anything to help him get elected again.

Thanks.

Wilderspin - I hope in the future you will post other examples of the strange new views/ways of thinking at Cambridge & uni generally that the piece you posted today demonstrates - if, of course, that is what you see going forward.

Significantly, a piece in an online publication from New York University also published today is full of the same kinds of off-base assumptions & bizarre thinking demonstrated by the Cambridge student in the piece you shared.

Only the NYU article is even worse. It's full of BS "stats" exaggerating both trans people's vulnerability & all the (phantom) malevolent forces out to oppress, threaten, harm & erase them here in the US.

scienceline.org/2018/11/trumps-transgender-memo-could-damage-trans-mental-health-experts-say/

When I come across all this talk about the chamber of constant horrors that trans people supposedly inhabit, I'm always reminded of that scene in the movie "Twister" where they seek refuge from the tornado inside a barn, only to realize once inside that it's a hazard zone full of scythes, pitchforks, machetes & zillions of other nasty, sharp implements sure to cut them all to bloody ribbons when the storm hits. Well, apparently that barn is pretty much what life is like for trans people in the West 24/7/365! Compared to them, the Rohingya in their hellish, squalid refugee camps in Bangladesh have it easy.

I coined a phrase for this distorted way of looking at the world: seeing through bruise-colored glasses. But even that's not sufficient. Bruise-colored Coke bottle glasses, I should say.

Gosh, no Vegilante I didn't mean your turn of phrase was enabling the Trumps of the present era. My anger is at those who want to retreat into their own identity groups so they can feel superior to others and as a result are free to go on Teflon-coated attacks against their enemies.

Vegilante I had to have a little chortle at your turn of phrase the chamber of constant horrors that trans people supposedly inhabit. I feel the following anecdote is pertinent.

I've been protesting out and about in Cambridge recently, and had a nice experience with five students (undergraduates I think) following me about on King's Parade. When I asked them why, they said they wanted to block students from seeing my sign as 'it could make them feel unsafe'. There was a warning posted to CUSU's LGBT+ facebook page saying 'hi pals just 2 warn there is a terf (w/banner etc) on kings parade!'

The sign says 'acknowledging biological sex is not hate speech'.

Thanks nauticant good to hear that. I didn't think my wording was what you objected to, but then again, one can never be sure, especially now that we live in a time when umbrage-taking has become such a popular pastime. And me, I have a history of saying things that I later learnt others found shocking, horrifying, rude, inflammatory or otherwise outrageous - much to the chagrin of my front-hole issue (that last phrase is exactly the sort of thing said issue would give me side-eye for!)

maniacmagpie bloody hell! I hate the term snowflake, but, well, sometimes...

Maniacmagpie - glad you got a chuckle out of chamber of constant horrors ... The phrase was inspired in part by a recent complaint by a TRA on Instagram about having to live in a world where trans folk "are constantly murdered."

As for the terrorism you've been getting up to in Cambridge, I hope you're pleased with yourself for carrying that awful, hateful sign because last I heard it forced half the campus to bleed from their eyes! The pain, the pain! Some kids burst into flames & burnt to death too, you evil trans-incendiary swerf terf with your biological hate speech fuddy-duddy fact-fixated feminism, you. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

Vegilante I nearly split my sides and could not produce a good comeback.

To be absolutely fair, I am definitely provoking a response from a particular sort of person, and flushing a certain sentiment into the open. In that way I can see how it's a stronger statement than the actual words themselves.

On a more feminism related note, I do find it upsetting to have to defend myself on the basis of my sex day-in day-out and see how having circles where you don't have to worry about a particular problem (in this case their sex) would be nice, if it causes distress. Given that I am literally completely unable to escape this debate at work, with my family, in society (I haven't read the whole 'extreme male brain' thread yet because I don't have the energy, but I get the impression it's Baren Cohen pontificating on his pet theory yet again), and at home with my own partner I can see the appeal of having places where you don't have to worry about it.

All of Cambridge is not the bloody time or place though, even if it didn't make sexism completely unnameable. I apply this standard to feminism too - I have never, ever thought the right approach to combating sexism should be to blanket make things unsayable. I'm endlessly frustrated by men around me who will just shush their colleagues with a 'you can't say that' rather than arguing them down; that's left to me, and then out come the eyerolls. I have never even considered going over their heads; I think it's the wrong approach for what I've experienced, and would make things worse. However this is coming from the baseline of the fact that I think I just about have the respect of most of the men around me as a person if not a woman.

I think it would be equally wrong to attack his mere presence for making the space 'unsafe' for women is what I'm trying to say here.

Accusations are admissions.

They make women unsafe when their rhetoric is questioned.