Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

We need your feedback on the new forum text editor switch.
Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Jordan Peterson

UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,983

So, what do you think?
Lol, how to disengage anybody reading this before they start.

I've been listening to his lectures and talks and frankly, I think he is amazing.

For anybody who doesn't know who I am talking about, (seriously where have you been?) basically he's a Canadian psychology professor who fell foul of the identity politic authoritarians when he took a stand against proscribed speech.
Just to clear up something, he never stood against equality for transgender people, his objection was to the Canadian government implementing law that meant you could be prosecuted for not using the pronouns they proscribed. In other words, compelled speech.

I think a huge number of people, (like myself), discovered him and what he was saying and lecturing about after the debarcle of his interview on UK TV Channel 4 with Cathy Neuman about the false and dishonest "gender pay gap". He quietly and logically demolished the interviewer's stance to the point where she couldn't even talk for a few moments while she considered what he was saying.
It was glorious.

Anyway, here's the link. Have a watch if you are interested in listening to somebody who has something valuable to say rather than soundbites.



One other thing, he has a whole series of lectures titled "Maps and Meaning" which explore the archetypes of myths, legends and the religious stories (of the Bible in particular) and how they resonate.

Something that might be of interest to people on a forum based on a game that uses all of those archetypes.



ThacoBellArdanissemiticgodRaduzielRavenslight
«134567

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,718
    Maps of Meaning*

    I like him but he's also prone to some really Deepak Chopra -esque inane babble. He also has strange ideas about religion, like you cannot be moral without the god of bible and apparently everyone secretly believes in this god.

    That interview was mental. She had no interest in honest discussion.

    ThacoBellGrammarsalad
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 6,707
    No she didn't. It was fun to watch him try to hold back laughter early on, only to completely fail by the end.

  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,983

    Maps of Meaning*

    I like him but he's also prone to some really Deepak Chopra -esque inane babble. He also has strange ideas about religion, like you cannot be moral without the god of bible and apparently everyone secretly believes in this god.

    That interview was mental. She had no interest in honest discussion.


    Now you see I'm an atheist, always have been. No "conversion" or wokeness, it has never made sense to me that there was a "creator" or even that there needed to be one. And living up to some ideal, nope

    However, I am always surprised when people are so "moral". In this day and age, discussion and politics is dominated by "moral stances". Regardless of religion or Gods, people are incredibly offended when you cross what they believe to be "morally" correct.

    It's been said that the new far left resemble the puritans of old. Go against their beliefs and you are cast out and ostracised and of course insulted and called names.

    He doesn't say that you need to believe in God to be moral, it's far more subtle what he is saying. His stance is that regardless of belief in a deity, people believe in things.
    It's the "belief" that he is discussing, not what it is in.

    The examples in politics at the moment abound in this, with examples of belief in what they say rather than logical conclusions.
    Have an argument with an idealog and you end up with the discussion being framed in belief.

    ArdanisThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,718

    Maps of Meaning*

    I like him but he's also prone to some really Deepak Chopra -esque inane babble. He also has strange ideas about religion, like you cannot be moral without the god of bible and apparently everyone secretly believes in this god.

    That interview was mental. She had no interest in honest discussion.


    Now you see I'm an atheist, always have been. No "conversion" or wokeness, it has never made sense to me that there was a "creator" or even that there needed to be one. And living up to some ideal, nope

    However, I am always surprised when people are so "moral". In this day and age, discussion and politics is dominated by "moral stances". Regardless of religion or Gods, people are incredibly offended when you cross what they believe to be "morally" correct.

    It's been said that the new far left resemble the puritans of old. Go against their beliefs and you are cast out and ostracised and of course insulted and called names.

    He doesn't say that you need to believe in God to be moral, it's far more subtle what he is saying. His stance is that regardless of belief in a deity, people believe in things.
    It's the "belief" that he is discussing, not what it is in.

    The examples in politics at the moment abound in this, with examples of belief in what they say rather than logical conclusions.
    Have an argument with an idealog and you end up with the discussion being framed in belief.

    Actually, he did say that in a debate with Matt Dillahunty



    I don't remember the timestamp, though.

    Here's a shorter video which implies the same



  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,718
    edited June 14
    Ammar said:

    I don't have a high opinion of him.

    If you look at his popular writing (Maps of Meaning) it is a typical example of using very complex language to say very little. If you look at the positive critical reception, it is mostly in the vein "I don't understand it, but it sounds brilliant". It is so vague that when debated he can always claim to be misunderstood.

    Looking at his political opinions, he is the usually white right wing academic, who claims he is not allowed to speak his mind and being opressed, while having a huge audience, published books and a nice position at a university. Then there is the typical decrying of identity politics, while engaging on identity politics of his own (but in that case, it is being "rational").

    In short, the man is a hack.

    @Ammar Hence, Deepak Chopra -esque ;) (if anyone is wondering, no, that is not a compliment)

    OrlonKronsteenAmmarGrammarsalad
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,199
    Ammar said:

    I don't have a high opinion of him.

    If you look at his popular writing (Maps of Meaning) it is a typical example of using very complex language to say very little. If you look at the positive critical reception, it is mostly in the vein "I don't understand it, but it sounds brilliant". It is so vague that when debated he can always claim to be misunderstood.

    Looking at his political opinions, he is the usually white right wing academic, who claims he is not allowed to speak his mind and being opressed, while having a huge audience, published books and a nice position at a university. Then there is the typical decrying of identity politics, while engaging on identity politics of his own (but in that case, it is being "rational").

    In short, the man is a hack.

    Claiming to be misunderstood after he says something is his entire business strategy.

    OrlonKronsteenAmmarGrammarsalad
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,590
    When he blew up here in Canada regarding gender identity, he was being oppressed for his view. People held rallies and protests against him and his class and I believe his classes were interrupted once or twice.

    It has blown over since this had happened though and with the media exposure he received from it, he was able to expand his personal brand.

    When the gender identity thing did happen in Canada (and I am talking about zis/ze), a lot of people agreed with him. All he was saying is that there is a way to go too far to the left in the accommodation of what is reasonably acceptable. Fake outrage is a political stunt in an attempt to grasp power.

    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    ThacoBell
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 563
    deltago said:


    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    This is a completely reasonable position.

    But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.

    semiticgodGrammarsalad
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,983

    Maps of Meaning*

    I like him but he's also prone to some really Deepak Chopra -esque inane babble. He also has strange ideas about religion, like you cannot be moral without the god of bible and apparently everyone secretly believes in this god.

    That interview was mental. She had no interest in honest discussion.


    Now you see I'm an atheist, always have been. No "conversion" or wokeness, it has never made sense to me that there was a "creator" or even that there needed to be one. And living up to some ideal, nope

    However, I am always surprised when people are so "moral". In this day and age, discussion and politics is dominated by "moral stances". Regardless of religion or Gods, people are incredibly offended when you cross what they believe to be "morally" correct.

    It's been said that the new far left resemble the puritans of old. Go against their beliefs and you are cast out and ostracised and of course insulted and called names.

    He doesn't say that you need to believe in God to be moral, it's far more subtle what he is saying. His stance is that regardless of belief in a deity, people believe in things.
    It's the "belief" that he is discussing, not what it is in.

    The examples in politics at the moment abound in this, with examples of belief in what they say rather than logical conclusions.
    Have an argument with an idealog and you end up with the discussion being framed in belief.

    Actually, he did say that in a debate with Matt Dillahunty



    I don't remember the timestamp, though.

    Here's a shorter video which implies the same



    The second clip repeats what I said??

    Not sure what you are saying.

  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,983
    Ammar said:

    I don't have a high opinion of him.

    If you look at his popular writing (Maps of Meaning) it is a typical example of using very complex language to say very little. If you look at the positive critical reception, it is mostly in the vein "I don't understand it, but it sounds brilliant". It is so vague that when debated he can always claim to be misunderstood.

    Looking at his political opinions, he is the usually white right wing academic, who claims he is not allowed to speak his mind and being opressed, while having a huge audience, published books and a nice position at a university. Then there is the typical decrying of identity politics, while engaging on identity politics of his own (but in that case, it is being "rational").

    In short, the man is a hack.


    You used "white" as a discriptor? really?

    Why?




    ThacoBellsemiticgod
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,718

    Maps of Meaning*

    I like him but he's also prone to some really Deepak Chopra -esque inane babble. He also has strange ideas about religion, like you cannot be moral without the god of bible and apparently everyone secretly believes in this god.

    That interview was mental. She had no interest in honest discussion.


    Now you see I'm an atheist, always have been. No "conversion" or wokeness, it has never made sense to me that there was a "creator" or even that there needed to be one. And living up to some ideal, nope

    However, I am always surprised when people are so "moral". In this day and age, discussion and politics is dominated by "moral stances". Regardless of religion or Gods, people are incredibly offended when you cross what they believe to be "morally" correct.

    It's been said that the new far left resemble the puritans of old. Go against their beliefs and you are cast out and ostracised and of course insulted and called names.

    He doesn't say that you need to believe in God to be moral, it's far more subtle what he is saying. His stance is that regardless of belief in a deity, people believe in things.
    It's the "belief" that he is discussing, not what it is in.

    The examples in politics at the moment abound in this, with examples of belief in what they say rather than logical conclusions.
    Have an argument with an idealog and you end up with the discussion being framed in belief.

    Actually, he did say that in a debate with Matt Dillahunty



    I don't remember the timestamp, though.

    Here's a shorter video which implies the same



    The second clip repeats what I said??

    Not sure what you are saying.
    Watch the debate where he explicitly claims what I said he does.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,199

    Maps of Meaning*

    I like him but he's also prone to some really Deepak Chopra -esque inane babble. He also has strange ideas about religion, like you cannot be moral without the god of bible and apparently everyone secretly believes in this god.

    That interview was mental. She had no interest in honest discussion.


    Now you see I'm an atheist, always have been. No "conversion" or wokeness, it has never made sense to me that there was a "creator" or even that there needed to be one. And living up to some ideal, nope

    However, I am always surprised when people are so "moral". In this day and age, discussion and politics is dominated by "moral stances". Regardless of religion or Gods, people are incredibly offended when you cross what they believe to be "morally" correct.

    It's been said that the new far left resemble the puritans of old. Go against their beliefs and you are cast out and ostracised and of course insulted and called names.

    He doesn't say that you need to believe in God to be moral, it's far more subtle what he is saying. His stance is that regardless of belief in a deity, people believe in things.
    It's the "belief" that he is discussing, not what it is in.

    The examples in politics at the moment abound in this, with examples of belief in what they say rather than logical conclusions.
    Have an argument with an idealog and you end up with the discussion being framed in belief.

    Actually, he did say that in a debate with Matt Dillahunty



    I don't remember the timestamp, though.

    Here's a shorter video which implies the same



    The second clip repeats what I said??

    Not sure what you are saying.
    Watch the debate where he explicitly claims what I said he does.
    This is the entire game with Peterson and there is no point in getting tied up in it. He couches everything in a disingenuous veneer of plausible deniability SPECIFICALLY so that when he gets criticized, he can say "I didn't say that." That is all there is to see here. The more he gets attacked, the more popular he becomes with his core group of fans.

    FinneousPJAmmarGrammarsalad
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,983
    Ammar said:

    deltago said:


    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    This is a completely reasonable position.

    But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.

    Not true.
    He has stated that if an individual asked him to address them as whatever preferred pronoun he would comply if he believed it was an honest request.

    ThacoBellsemiticgod
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,590
    Ammar said:

    deltago said:


    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    This is a completely reasonable position.

    But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.

    So the pronoun he refuses to use is "they," and it allegedly happened twice. Once on purpose and once as an accident during a debate. "They" is plural and it is his belief that humans are binary. Male or Female, one or the other. Even the majority of hermaphrodites associate with one gender more than the other. Choose one.

    Seems reasonable? maybe, maybe not. It's an opinion and a view and this is how far the other side swung it.

    "We don't believe federal funding should be used to endorse individuals who have exceptionally problematic views, and who attempt to block human rights legislation (Bill C-16) to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. For the National Gallery to hire this individual sends a message to the trans community that we're not valued in this space, and that our bodies are not considered valid."

    Let me see if I can find it, doubt it though... nope found it...

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/how-controversial-u-of-t-prof-jordan-peterson-became-a-lightning-rod

    UnderstandMouseMagicThacoBell
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 563

    Ammar said:

    I don't have a high opinion of him.

    If you look at his popular writing (Maps of Meaning) it is a typical example of using very complex language to say very little. If you look at the positive critical reception, it is mostly in the vein "I don't understand it, but it sounds brilliant". It is so vague that when debated he can always claim to be misunderstood.

    Looking at his political opinions, he is the usually white right wing academic, who claims he is not allowed to speak his mind and being opressed, while having a huge audience, published books and a nice position at a university. Then there is the typical decrying of identity politics, while engaging on identity politics of his own (but in that case, it is being "rational").

    In short, the man is a hack.


    You used "white" as a discriptor? really?

    Why?




    My bad. I should have said straight white instead. Look, I am not one of those claiming we already live in a post-racial society. There are moments where it matters - not because being white makes you a bad person, but because it means you lack the experience of being part of a minority that has been discriminated against for centuries.

    If a rich heir says the poor should shut up and work harder, I will call him a rich heir. And if a white straight man says minorities are just playing identity politics, I am going to call him a white straight man. It is a matter of perspective, not of blaming people as a group.

    Grammarsaladsubtledoctor
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 563

    Ammar said:

    deltago said:


    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    This is a completely reasonable position.

    But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.

    Not true.
    He has stated that if an individual asked him to address them as whatever preferred pronoun he would comply if he believed it was an honest request.
    So? This is an empty claim. He can just say that he believes none of those requests are honest (and that is basically what he does):

    I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.


    Do you see any room here for him believing it to be a honest request to be adressed in such a way in any manner?

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,590
    Ammar said:

    Ammar said:

    deltago said:


    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    This is a completely reasonable position.

    But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.

    Not true.
    He has stated that if an individual asked him to address them as whatever preferred pronoun he would comply if he believed it was an honest request.
    So? This is an empty claim. He can just say that he believes none of those requests are honest (and that is basically what he does):

    I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.


    Do you see any room here for him believing it to be a honest request to be adressed in such a way in any manner?
    But it is to ask the question WHY do we need these words? Are we so afraid to offend a person that basic norms need to be tossed and we all must comply or else be labeled as homophobe?

    ThacoBell
  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 546
    He is/was a middling academic who has jumped onto the wagon of populism - nothing more than another demagogue. If you sift through the writings, videos and interviews - and having gone through just some of them I can tell you that is an exhausting job - you'll find very little substance and a lot of bizarre nonsense, as others have already alluded to. Here are a couple articles that pretty much sum it up.

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

    Ammarsemiticgod
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 563
    deltago said:

    Ammar said:

    Ammar said:

    deltago said:


    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    This is a completely reasonable position.

    But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.

    Not true.
    He has stated that if an individual asked him to address them as whatever preferred pronoun he would comply if he believed it was an honest request.
    So? This is an empty claim. He can just say that he believes none of those requests are honest (and that is basically what he does):

    I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.


    Do you see any room here for him believing it to be a honest request to be adressed in such a way in any manner?
    But it is to ask the question WHY do we need these words? Are we so afraid to offend a person that basic norms need to be tossed and we all must comply or else be labeled as homophobe?
    Does it hurt you to do so? I see it as a basic courtesy to generally adress people how they want to be adressed. If Alexander wants me to call him Alex, I will. If a feminist believes that woman taking the family name of the husband, I would still expect that this is the name that is used if the wife prefers it.

    While I do not believe the state as government should be able to demand basic courtesy from it's citizens, the state as employer should be able demand it from it's employees, like every other employer.

    Also do you notice that you just moved the goal posts? You made a claim that Peterson did not say X but instead Y. I demonstrate that he did in fact say X and now you say "yes, but Y is correct"?

    semiticgodGrammarsalad
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,590
    edited June 14
    I actually referenced both. (Zis/ze in my initial post and the "they" controversy in my last post as it was the "they" one that people were first up in arms about. I wasn't sure what pronoun you were referencing at first so I went with the real pronoun.)

    And if someone wanted to be addressed as supreme leader of the universe, would you give them that courtesy as well? It doesn't hurt you in anyway does it?

    What happens when an individual decides that zhe doesn't actually reflect them and they want to be called something else like quoratic. How far should society bend on the whims of an individual? How far is too far?

    It is also where the Zher/Zhe came from that he is against.

    According to Paterson, the zher/zhe is already too far. He bases it on the binary definition of "male/ female." You personally may not agree with that opinion, which is fine, but you, nor he, should be silenced for having that opinion and attempting to discuss it.

    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,199
    edited June 15
    I simply don't believe that in the end this has much to do with whatever the Canadian version of "free speech" is or actually taking a principled stand. Sure, it started out that way, it's the pretense. But this in the end is very clearly a career play to a specific audience, which is the Alt-right/Alt-light. It's not a coincidence that this original controversy is about trans people and how they should be addressed.

    Read the comment section of any video Jordan Peterson is the subject of, and you will inevitably run into three patterns: 1.) He was taken out of context (the video was edited!!!!) 2.) A refusal to call a trans person by their preferred pronoun and 3.) How being transgender is a mental disorder. The last point is pointed out almost like they think they are doing society a favor by pointing it out as often as possible. As if they truly CARE about trans people, rather than what they feel is their inalienable right to be as rude as possible. I suppose they DO have that right, but let's not sit around and pretend it's anything other than what it is. Alot of Jordan Peterson followers (demographically) are young, male, white, pissed off, and looking for a some sort of surrogate father figure. And that is what Peterson provides. Alot of self-help mumbo jumbo sprinkled with a hall pass to dabble in some pretty loathsome views about women and transgender people. All with that light touch of plausible deniability provided by "ideas" and "academia"

    I don't even think Jordan Peterson himself is an especially hateful person or engaging in flat-out bigotry or misogyny. He is too crafty for that. He is simply catering to an audience that is.

  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 546

    I don't even think Jordan Peterson himself is an especially hateful person or engaging in flat-out bigotry or misogyny. He is too crafty for that. He is simply catering to an audience that is.

    Well, you can argue that only a hateful person would cater to that audience. But you're absolutely right: his complaint about language legislation is an obvious dog whistle.

  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,288
    deltago said:

    Ammar said:

    deltago said:


    A person should be allowed to ‘guess’ what pronoun group another person would respond to, and if that guess is wrong, the other person can politely correct them. There is nothing wrong with that but there are a few people who deem that unacceptable. The majority of society shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a few. That was his message in a nutshell.

    This is a completely reasonable position.

    But it is explictly not the position of Peterson. Peterson is not saying you should be allowed to guess, and the other person can politely correct you. He strictly refuses to use the preferred pronoun, after being politely informed about it.

    So the pronoun he refuses to use is "they," and it allegedly happened twice. Once on purpose and once as an accident during a debate. "They" is plural and it is his belief that humans are binary. Male or Female, one or the other. Even the majority of hermaphrodites associate with one gender more than the other. Choose one.

    Seems reasonable? maybe, maybe not. It's an opinion and a view and this is how far the other side swung it.
    "They" is commonly used as a singular gender-neutral pronoun in English. A 1998 study found that "they" as a singular pronoun was the most frequently used gender-neutral pronoun by British English speakers. Such usage has been part of the English language since the late 1300s (http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/austheir.html).

    Peterson is just trying to come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for his bias.

    semiticgodGrammarsalad
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,718
    One of the things I'm wondering is you don't address people in the 3rd person when talking to them. Why does it matter what pronoun I use when referring to you when you are not present? If the person is present, you should address them by name or directly in 2nd person.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,199
    edited June 15

    One of the things I'm wondering is you don't address people in the 3rd person when talking to them. Why does it matter what pronoun I use when referring to you when you are not present? If the person is present, you should address them by name or directly in 2nd person.

    I don't know that it does matter all that much, unless you are in a conversation that involved 3 or 4 people. But that isn't really the issue. It is VERY important to certain people that they only refer to trans people by the gender they were born as, despite it not being remotely difficult to do the opposite. And that, to me, says far more about THAT person than it does about anything else. There is an idea that they are somehow saving society from a sort of sexual deviancy and mental illness. It's done because they don't particularly like the idea of transgender people. They find it weird and gross. That is why they do it. There is no other reason. And they spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it, as if asking someone to call them by a certain gender is akin to telling someone they can't brush their teeth for 30 days. It's barely even a request. And a refusal to do it is just asshole behavior. They don't view being transgender as a legitimate lifestyle. And hey, who would know better than a bunch of internet edgelords and a Canadian college professor??

    semiticgod
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,718

    One of the things I'm wondering is you don't address people in the 3rd person when talking to them. Why does it matter what pronoun I use when referring to you when you are not present? If the person is present, you should address them by name or directly in 2nd person.

    I don't know that it does matter all that much, unless you are in a conversation that involved 3 or 4 people. But that isn't really the issue. It is VERY important to certain people that they only refer to trans people by the gender they were born as, despite it not being remotely difficult to do the opposite. And that, to me, says far more about THAT person than it does about anything else. There is an idea that they are somehow saving society from a sort of sexual deviancy and mental illness. It's done because they don't particularly like the idea of transgender people. They find it weird and gross. That is why they do it. There is no other reason. And they spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it, as if asking someone to call them by a certain gender is akin to telling someone they can't brush their teeth for 30 days. It's barely even a request. And a refusal to do it is just asshole behavior. They don't view being transgender as a legitimate lifestyle. And hey, who would know better than a bunch of internet edgelords and a Canadian college professor??
    If you are in a group conversation and the person is present, it is more appropriate to refer to them by name rather than he/she/other. That's my whole point. I'm not aware of a circumstance where you would refer to a person in 3rd person when they are present.

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 609
    deltago said:



    According to Paterson, the zher/zhe is already too far. He bases it on the binary definition of "male/ female." You personally may not agree with that opinion, which is fine, but you, nor he, should be silenced for having that opinion and attempting to discuss it.

    And what is this binary definition of "male/ female." based on? Linguistics?

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,590
    chimaera said:


    deltago said:



    According to Paterson, the zher/zhe is already too far. He bases it on the binary definition of "male/ female." You personally may not agree with that opinion, which is fine, but you, nor he, should be silenced for having that opinion and attempting to discuss it.

    And what is this binary definition of "male/ female." based on? Linguistics?
    Biology. Now if you bring up intersex, that's fine, however depending on who you ask, intersex is usually 0.018% to 1.7% of the population.

    Now I don't want to get into "corrective surgery" or past medical mistakes involving intersex people, however, most intersex people will still define themselves as one of the two genders. So it is based on society, culture and biology.

    So if a majority of that 1.7% of the population self recognizes themselves as either male or female, we are looking at less than 1% attempting to dictate how society should function. Is that acceptable? If so where is the line where it is no longer acceptable?

    One of the things I'm wondering is you don't address people in the 3rd person when talking to them. Why does it matter what pronoun I use when referring to you when you are not present? If the person is present, you should address them by name or directly in 2nd person.

    I don't know that it does matter all that much, unless you are in a conversation that involved 3 or 4 people. But that isn't really the issue. It is VERY important to certain people that they only refer to trans people by the gender they were born as, despite it not being remotely difficult to do the opposite. And that, to me, says far more about THAT person than it does about anything else. There is an idea that they are somehow saving society from a sort of sexual deviancy and mental illness. It's done because they don't particularly like the idea of transgender people. They find it weird and gross. That is why they do it. There is no other reason. And they spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it, as if asking someone to call them by a certain gender is akin to telling someone they can't brush their teeth for 30 days. It's barely even a request. And a refusal to do it is just asshole behavior. They don't view being transgender as a legitimate lifestyle. And hey, who would know better than a bunch of internet edgelords and a Canadian college professor??
    Why does it always have to swing that far right when discussing this?

    There are also people who think we should get rid of he/she/his/her and replace it a new gender neutral pronoun that everyone should be addressed as. There are extremes on both sides, but to have a conversation regarding this the extremes should be ignored and attempt to find a comparable middle ground.

    ThacoBellGrond0
«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.