Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

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

24567

Comments

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 688
    deltago said:

    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?

    Well, I'd kindly ask you to bring up the most recent biological research in support of your claim (and please no wikipedia links), then. The current biological research - to my extentend of knowledge - shows that sex is complex and not a two-state distinction (we start out sexually indifferent, not male or female during fetal development, and then there is the genetic, cellular and organismal sex, which do not have to align). However, I work in a different field (microbiology), so I'd be happy to learn more about this subject.

    Second, when you bring up the society, then it begs the question, which one do you mean? I can agree that the male vs. female distinction is dominant in the Western society, but if you think this should be the norm for everyone, that's neo-collonialism at its worst. This non-adherence to (European Christian) norms has been used as an argument to bring "enlightement" to indigenous cultures, and used as means of eradicating their self-identity, even today. If a non-white, non-christian country creates a legal definition of a third gender, where does it place them according to your argument?


    Grammarsalad
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 609
    deltago said:


    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?

    I almost expected someone to bring up an silly example like this. There is an obvious difference between a new made up pronoun, and a denotation that already has a specific meaning, which *also* carries the very specific implication that a person addressed in this way is superior to you. Here is a slightly more extensive list of things it is not reasonable for people to demand to be addressed as: racial slurs, terms implying a family relationship, religious or politic honorifics and terms implying that the addressed person is superior to everyone else.
    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.

    He is not being silenced. People protesting you because they think you are wrong is not silencing, until they start to hurt you. Moreover, I am fine with him writing opinions like that in his research and even discussing it with class if the topic is his research.

    Nevertheless, I still think he needs to have the basic courtesy to address his students like they want to (with above exceptions), even if he disagrees. It's the same way that the standard salutation in a German letter is "Very Honored XY", and I can assure you that people use it a lot without actually think the other person deserved to be honored.

    Anyway, the binary male/female definition is so flawed, that you might write the same thing about flat earth creationists.

    semiticgod
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 609
    deltago said:



    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?

    I would suggest you think about why you consider this specific small population asking to not be persecuted and to be treated with respect, as them dictating how society should function. Frankly, it is a bit ridiculous.

    semiticgodGrammarsalad
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,978
    chimaera said:

    deltago said:

    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?

    Well, I'd kindly ask you to bring up the most recent biological research in support of your claim (and please no wikipedia links), then. The current biological research - to my extentend of knowledge - shows that sex is complex and not a two-state distinction (we start out sexually indifferent, not male or female during fetal development, and then there is the genetic, cellular and organismal sex, which do not have to align). However, I work in a different field (microbiology), so I'd be happy to learn more about this subject.

    Second, when you bring up the society, then it begs the question, which one do you mean? I can agree that the male vs. female distinction is dominant in the Western society, but if you think this should be the norm for everyone, that's neo-collonialism at its worst. This non-adherence to (European Christian) norms has been used as an argument to bring "enlightement" to indigenous cultures, and used as means of eradicating their self-identity, even today. If a non-white, non-christian country creates a legal definition of a third gender, where does it place them according to your argument?


    sure, this is the one I glanced at quickly. It is from 2002. I also don't think Biology is the right word when it might be psychology. I just don't like using the word psychology when discussing this because it does bring in up the "mental disorder" proclaimer which people tend to view the wrong way, as it is not a disorder at all and is natural.

    Now yes, I am talking about Western Culture and society only, however, I am unaware of any other culture or society that does not have a distinct male/female separation. Feel free to enlighten me if you personally know of one.
    Ammar said:

    deltago said:



    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?

    I would suggest you think about why you consider this specific small population asking to not be persecuted and to be treated with respect, as them dictating how society should function. Frankly, it is a bit ridiculous.

    And this is the argument. How are they being persecuted?

    Is it societies fault that they do not want to be known as a he, she or they?
    What happens when the person doesn't want to be known as zher either? Are they still be persecuted?

    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 688
    edited June 15
    deltago said:

    chimaera said:

    deltago said:

    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?

    Well, I'd kindly ask you to bring up the most recent biological research in support of your claim (and please no wikipedia links), then. The current biological research - to my extentend of knowledge - shows that sex is complex and not a two-state distinction (we start out sexually indifferent, not male or female during fetal development, and then there is the genetic, cellular and organismal sex, which do not have to align). However, I work in a different field (microbiology), so I'd be happy to learn more about this subject.

    Second, when you bring up the society, then it begs the question, which one do you mean? I can agree that the male vs. female distinction is dominant in the Western society, but if you think this should be the norm for everyone, that's neo-collonialism at its worst. This non-adherence to (European Christian) norms has been used as an argument to bring "enlightement" to indigenous cultures, and used as means of eradicating their self-identity, even today. If a non-white, non-christian country creates a legal definition of a third gender, where does it place them according to your argument?


    sure, this is the one I glanced at quickly. It is from 2002. I also don't think Biology is the right word when it might be psychology. I just don't like using the word psychology when discussing this because it does bring in up the "mental disorder" proclaimer which people tend to view the wrong way, as it is not a disorder at all and is natural.

    Now yes, I am talking about Western Culture and society only, however, I am unaware of any other culture or society that does not have a distinct male/female separation. Feel free to enlighten me if you personally know of one.

    Except this paper you've linked doesn't answer my question. I have not asked how common intersex is. I have asked (to repeat myself here) to show me biological research that supports your claim that biology defines sex as a binary two-state.

    Second, I have asked "If a non-white, non-christian country creates a legal definition of a third gender, where does it place them according to your argument?" This is not the same question as whether a "culture or society that does not have a distinct male/female separation" exists. (At this point I'd kindly ask you to not twist my words to change their meaning, thank you.) For example, afaik Nepal allows you to list your gender as male, female or other.

    Your disctinction of intersex vs. non-intersex population is ignoring the cultural, historical and religious differences within the human population as a whole, and assumes the hegemony of one culture - conveniently, the one you identify with.

    edit: And this Western hegemony takes on a very ugly meaning if you view the problem in the historical context of countries like Canada or USA. Some Native American people have more complex definitions of genders and more than just the binary definition. If they are in the minority today, and their beliefs and traditions are not widely known, it's because of collonial conquest and genocide.

    Post edited by chimaera on
    Grammarsalad
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,978
    Society, culture.

    Now if you want to proclaim that over 99% of the population are wrong when they associate themselves as male or female, please do. That would be your opinion on the matter

    Canada also allows a person to choose other under gender, in fact Canada has moved away from even putting gender on birth certificates.

    None of this has to do with a pronoun a person should be addressed with and if society should adopt news ones to prevent a person from being offended.

  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 609
    deltago said:


    And this is the argument. How are they being persecuted?

    Is it societies fault that they do not want to be known as a he, she or they?
    What happens when the person doesn't want to be known as zher either? Are they still be persecuted?


    I said they want to not be persecuted AND want to be respected (in the same way as other human beings).

    Using their preferred pronoun is a matter of respect.

    I am not sure what to think of the questions regarding societies fault. You seem to ask a rhetorical question about a claim no one made. Society is not responsible for what the needs of the transgender community are (which is what your question is about). It is responsible to accommodate the needs of the individual members to a reasonable amount.

    So what society should do is offer reasonable accommodations. Using a slightly unusual pronoun after being informed of an individual preference is not unreasonable. If you are a male you do not want to be referred to as "she". If you are a female you do not want to be referred to as "he". And if you can identify with neither, you do not want to be referred to as either. That is perfectly reasonable to me, and the amount of effort involved on my part is minimal.

    In fact, I would say that I have already spent more effort humoring your rhetorical questions than remembering the preferred pronouns of 10 different transgender individuals.

  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 688
    deltago said:

    Society, culture.

    Now if you want to proclaim that over 99% of the population are wrong when they associate themselves as male or female, please do. That would be your opinion on the matter

    Canada also allows a person to choose other under gender, in fact Canada has moved away from even putting gender on birth certificates.

    None of this has to do with a pronoun a person should be addressed with and if society should adopt news ones to prevent a person from being offended.

    Again, please do not assign statements to me that I haven't made, thank you. What I disagree with is your claim that associating as male or female somehow means that we agree with - as you yourself admitted - the definition of gender based on the traditional Western culture and society.
    deltago said:


    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?"

    This 99% includes people who have more complex definitions of gender then the Western binary, e.g. a third gender. And the reason you might have not heard of them is because the Western culture has, once upon the time, deemed genocide as acceptable means of enforcing their ideas.

    And since you haven't actually addressed my previous questions, have one more opinion of mine: I don't think that asking for new pronouns is somehow unacceptable.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 5,822
    In fact, I would say that I have already spent more effort humoring your rhetorical questions than remembering the preferred pronouns of 10 different transgender individuals.

    I think this is the main point of this entire discussion. We all do things in life that we may not otherwise do to make others feel better or to reduce tension in a situation. My issue with not gendering someone how they ask to be gendered stems from the simple fact that it requires basically no effort or sacrifice of anything at all.

    semiticgod
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,978
    edited June 15
    Ammar said:

    deltago said:


    And this is the argument. How are they being persecuted?

    Is it societies fault that they do not want to be known as a he, she or they?
    What happens when the person doesn't want to be known as zher either? Are they still be persecuted?


    I said they want to not be persecuted AND want to be respected (in the same way as other human beings).

    Using their preferred pronoun is a matter of respect.

    I am not sure what to think of the questions regarding societies fault. You seem to ask a rhetorical question about a claim no one made. Society is not responsible for what the needs of the transgender community are (which is what your question is about). It is responsible to accommodate the needs of the individual members to a reasonable amount.

    So what society should do is offer reasonable accommodations. Using a slightly unusual pronoun after being informed of an individual preference is not unreasonable. If you are a male you do not want to be referred to as "she". If you are a female you do not want to be referred to as "he". And if you can identify with neither, you do not want to be referred to as either. That is perfectly reasonable to me, and the amount of effort involved on my part is minimal.

    In fact, I would say that I have already spent more effort humoring your rhetorical questions than remembering the preferred pronouns of 10 different transgender individuals.
    Nothing I asked was rhetorical. They might be questions we personally do not have the answer to but it does not mean they should not be asked.

    What is wrong with the 3rd pronoun that we as a society already use: they and has been in use since the 1300s according to astroguy?

    Why does a new word or words need to be created?
    chimaera said:

    deltago said:

    Society, culture.

    Now if you want to proclaim that over 99% of the population are wrong when they associate themselves as male or female, please do. That would be your opinion on the matter

    Canada also allows a person to choose other under gender, in fact Canada has moved away from even putting gender on birth certificates.

    None of this has to do with a pronoun a person should be addressed with and if society should adopt news ones to prevent a person from being offended.

    Again, please do not assign statements to me that I haven't made, thank you. What I disagree with is your claim that associating as male or female somehow means that we agree with - as you yourself admitted - the definition of gender based on the traditional Western culture and society.
    deltago said:


    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?"

    This 99% includes people who have more complex definitions of gender then the Western binary, e.g. a third gender. And the reason you might have not heard of them is because the Western culture has, once upon the time, deemed genocide as acceptable means of enforcing their ideas.

    And since you haven't actually addressed my previous questions, have one more opinion of mine: I don't think that asking for new pronouns is somehow unacceptable.
    This conversation, and it’s title relates to Jordan Peterson, a professor from a western culture that is right-leaning.

    His words and ideas reflect that culture. It is the one being discussed.

    Once again, I am not going to discuss western medicines past practise of dealing with intersex individuals. It has nothing to do with the conversation.

    ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,978

    In fact, I would say that I have already spent more effort humoring your rhetorical questions than remembering the preferred pronouns of 10 different transgender individuals.

    I think this is the main point of this entire discussion. We all do things in life that we may not otherwise do to make others feel better or to reduce tension in a situation. My issue with not gendering someone how they ask to be gendered stems from the simple fact that it requires basically no effort or sacrifice of anything at all.

    Actually it comes down to these two conflicting questions:

    Why can’t you address me in a made up title I prefer to be called?

    Why can’t an individual be addressed by one of the three already established pronouns in the English language: he/she/they?

    ~

    My answer to the first is that it separates and causes confusion when attempting to address an individual for the first time. The thought of offending an individual for choosing the wrong pronoun can create a defensive/offensive reaction further separating people who are considered different from society.

  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,663
    Oh boy. I saw the topic regarding Jordan Peterson. I clicked. And while I expected some mentions of the pronouns things, I see they are now dominating the discussion. That's dissapointing.

    I'll just talk about Peterson himself and what I think of him. First of all, as person who majored in psychology I respect his experience and knowledge.

    Second, at first I found his videos inpsiring, because I really needed to get a grip on myself and do something with my life, and his content gave me a little bit of push.

    Third, while I have no reason to doubt his efficiency when it comes to psychological work with his clients, when speaking about teaching soft skills, assertivenes etc, I do find his videos lacking. He is inspiring, but I found much more practical informations of how to get a grip/how to self-improve (in various areas) on other channels on YouTube.

    Fourth, even as a psychologist I disagree with him on some things, and some things I consider poorly worded. "Supreme moral effort" is not a good description of how one can self-help himself/herself with addictions. But knowing how habits (and addictions) are formed, how they can be replaced, together with aplying that knowledge and using some other techniques (like affirmations) will certainly help.

    And lastly, I do think that despite his merit as a psychologist, he is very unsciencific and not specific in certain areas. For once, I think he either mistakes spirituality, belief and concept of god, or is using those terms as one and the same thing, which is not. He showed that side of him in debate with Matt Dillahunty (he also did the same as that woman did to him during 4news interview), which needless to say dimished my respect for him to an extent).

    Overall and unsurprisingly, Jordan Peterson is a mixed bag for me. Has merits, has faults. I am no longer watching his videos simply because I think there are better sources of practical help. I can still listen to his lectures about archetypes in fiction while I work, though.

    deltagoThacoBell
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,881
    I wouldn't support a law mandating the use of this or that word--no need to get the police or the government involved in a matter of politeness that's still being debated. That being said, it doesn't cost me anything to say "ze" instead of he or she if somebody asks me, nor does it hurt anyone if I accidentally say "he" or "she" out of habit. Nor do I think anyone would begrudge me if I said "they" if I had too much trouble with "ze." After all, you wouldn't begrudge a native Chinese speaker for mispronouncing Agatha Thornton or a native English speaker for mispronouncing Yu Caozhi.

    Personally, I think "they" would be the best term, since it's easier to say and doesn't have any x's or z's, two letters which generally sound alien and foreign--which isn't necessarily the best sound for people who want to be accepted as normal.

    This seems like a fairly minor issue that's not worth intensive, heated discussion. The entire debate is about the use of a very small number of very short words, none of which has any meaning beyond "human or critter with this or that gender or sex," and no positive or negative connotations.

    UnderstandMouseMagicThacoBellBalrog99Grond0
  • chimaerachimaera Member Posts: 688
    edited June 15
    deltago said:



    This conversation, and it’s title relates to Jordan Peterson, a professor from a western culture that is right-leaning.

    His words and ideas reflect that culture. It is the one being discussed.

    Once again, I am not going to discuss western medicines past practise of dealing with intersex individuals. It has nothing to do with the conversation.

    You are the one who has brought both medicine and biology into this discussion. Biology is not Western culture. 99% of the human population - a number you brought up - is not Western culture either. Canada might be a Western culture in majority, but it's not just that alone. And I'd say the context on how this majority was achieved is very relevant to the discussion, especially if you want to talk about what is "acceptable".

  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,118
    O_Bruce said:

    Oh boy. I saw the topic regarding Jordan Peterson. I clicked. And while I expected some mentions of the pronouns things, I see they are now dominating the discussion. That's dissapointing.

    I'll just talk about Peterson himself and what I think of him. First of all, as person who majored in psychology I respect his experience and knowledge.

    Second, at first I found his videos inpsiring, because I really needed to get a grip on myself and do something with my life, and his content gave me a little bit of push.

    Third, while I have no reason to doubt his efficiency when it comes to psychological work with his clients, when speaking about teaching soft skills, assertivenes etc, I do find his videos lacking. He is inspiring, but I found much more practical informations of how to get a grip/how to self-improve (in various areas) on other channels on YouTube.

    Fourth, even as a psychologist I disagree with him on some things, and some things I consider poorly worded. "Supreme moral effort" is not a good description of how one can self-help himself/herself with addictions. But knowing how habits (and addictions) are formed, how they can be replaced, together with aplying that knowledge and using some other techniques (like affirmations) will certainly help.

    And lastly, I do think that despite his merit as a psychologist, he is very unsciencific and not specific in certain areas. For once, I think he either mistakes spirituality, belief and concept of god, or is using those terms as one and the same thing, which is not. He showed that side of him in debate with Matt Dillahunty (he also did the same as that woman did to him during 4news interview), which needless to say dimished my respect for him to an extent).

    Overall and unsurprisingly, Jordan Peterson is a mixed bag for me. Has merits, has faults. I am no longer watching his videos simply because I think there are better sources of practical help. I can still listen to his lectures about archetypes in fiction while I work, though.


    "Overall and unsurprisingly, Jordan Peterson is a mixed bag for me."

    And that IMO, is why he has been so succesful.

    We desperately need to move away from the zealots who say they have an answer for everything.

    Or those who judge a whole person from some small fault that they feel makes themselves feel morally superior.

    I couldn't give a monkey's if a person is transgender, but when you get in someones face and start demanding things, you are wrong. Being part of a minority doesn't excuse terrible behavior or violent behavior or threats or silencing opinions.

    Neither do historical injustices excuse open and blatent racism regardless of the BS "power imbalances".

    Anybody who talks about "white priviledge" is a racist. It's about time it stopped.






    ThacoBellArdanisWarChiefZekeO_Bruce
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 5,978
    chimaera said:

    deltago said:



    This conversation, and it’s title relates to Jordan Peterson, a professor from a western culture that is right-leaning.

    His words and ideas reflect that culture. It is the one being discussed.

    Once again, I am not going to discuss western medicines past practise of dealing with intersex individuals. It has nothing to do with the conversation.

    You are the one who has brought both medicine and biology into this discussion. Biology is not Western culture. 99% of the human population - a number you brought up - is not Western culture either. Canada might be a Western culture in majority, but it's not just that alone. And I'd say the context on how this majority was achieved is very relevant to the discussion, especially if you want to talk about what is "acceptable".

    Not really. I was asked where the binary term had come from, that the concept of over 99% of the population in Western Civilization either self identify as male or female was a foreign notion from someone. Knowing the conversation veers into intersexual persons, I also wanted to clarify that a majority of them also self identify as either male or female. I also used the wrong term in doing so as I should have said psychology instead of biology, which I corrected in a later post.

    This was also my attempt at explaining Peterson's position and opinion in the "They" debate that first catapulted him to recognition as he pushed back against calls for him to be fired for stating his opinion after challenging a student to state theirs. Student didn't like it, felt they were being persecuted because of how they self identified and ran to the school officials, Paterson was reprimanded by the school, he pushed back gaining popularity in the right leaning media, which increased his brand awareness which led to protests outside and inside his classroom as people continuously demanded that he be fired from the school for his opinions (read as an attempt to silence him), but that just sparked his popularity further as the media continued to cover it and to an international scale growing his brand even bigger and he knew it as his youtube videos began generating millions of views instead of hundreds. Here are the last lines from the article about him I first posted when he first started making public appearances:

    We asked how long he will keep up this phase of his life. He said he doesn’t know.
    “In a sensible world, I would have got my 15 minutes of fame,” he said, but “these are unpredictable times.
    “I feel like I’m surfing a giant a wave … and it could stop, it could come crashing down and wipe me out, or I could ride it and continue. All of those options are equally possible."


    Now let me go back to my very first post:

    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.


    Which brought on the Zher/Zis debate. These words are not pronouns. It is a made up word by a small minority of people in the hope of reshaping Western society and culture to their beliefs. As there is an alt-right, there is an alt-left who would rather have everyone be referred to as a Zher to prevent a person from being slighted.

    The word is also unneeded as the English Language already has a gender neutral terms in "they" as Astrobryguy pointed out. What is wrong with an individual being referred to as 'they'? Why does a new word need to enter our lexicon?

    Now I personally have never met a person who does not self identify as either male or female. How I respond to their personal request would probably have more to do with the respect and forgiveness they'd show to me for my ignorance on the matter than anything else.

    ~

    This is also a debate about Western Civilization as that is where Peterson is from. I would feel very much enlightened if a person would share a culture or society that already views humans as genderless or has more than two genders already established equally in their society. For now, I do not know of any but I always believe there is a lot we, as a world, can learn from each others experiences as long as we are willing to listen and treat everyone with respect that a fellow human being deserves.

    This is probably going to be my last post in this thread as it was just a clarification of everything I have mentioned prior.

    ThacoBellGrond0
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,386
    What people really need to do is learn to think for themselves rather than listen to other people telling them what to think.

    Balrog99O_BruceThacoBell
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,663
    Fardragon said:

    What people really need to do is learn to think for themselves rather than listen to other people telling them what to think.

    I agree. In general, critical thinking skills are great thing to have.

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,386
    O_Bruce said:

    Fardragon said:

    What people really need to do is learn to think for themselves rather than listen to other people telling them what to think.

    I agree. In general, critical thinking skills are great thing to have.
    I just told you not to listen to me! Don't you people ever listen?!

    :smiley:

    ThacoBellO_Bruce
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,881
    Naturally, I always think critically, so the best way to know if somebody is thinking critically and making their own judgments is if they believe the same things I do! :wink:

    Balrog99ArdanisThacoBell
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,118
    Fardragon said:

    What people really need to do is learn to think for themselves rather than listen to other people telling them what to think.

    Some people can't so what you going to do about them?

    I never understand this assumption that everybody, absolutely everybody can work things out and make their own minds up.
    I mean I can't be the only person who throughout life has met people, got to know people, who are genuinely stupid.
    They stumble through life being told "don't listen to anybody, there are no rules" and they are utterly lost. And often end up in a very bad way.

    IQ matters.

    The world doesn't exist only for those who have a reasonable IQ. Those might be the most vocal but really they are very narrow minded to believe that if society is created in their image and for them, the whole rest of humanity will be fine.

    Yeah sure if you are educated and middle class, it's absolutely wonderful to have no rules and no guidance.
    Not so good for those who simply can't work out the consequences of their actions and don't understand why things happen the way they happen.


    ArdanisThacoBellWarChiefZeke
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,386

    Fardragon said:

    What people really need to do is learn to think for themselves rather than listen to other people telling them what to think.

    Some people can't so what you going to do about them?

    I never understand this assumption that everybody, absolutely everybody can work things out and make their own minds up.
    I mean I can't be the only person who throughout life has met people, got to know people, who are genuinely stupid.
    They stumble through life being told "don't listen to anybody, there are no rules" and they are utterly lost. And often end up in a very bad way.

    IQ matters.

    The world doesn't exist only for those who have a reasonable IQ. Those might be the most vocal but really they are very narrow minded to believe that if society is created in their image and for them, the whole rest of humanity will be fine.

    Yeah sure if you are educated and middle class, it's absolutely wonderful to have no rules and no guidance.
    Not so good for those who simply can't work out the consequences of their actions and don't understand why things happen the way they happen.


    Because if you follow that line of thinking it leads to only two possible conclusions: Dictatorship or Eugenics (or three if you count both).

  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,663
    Intelligence depends on two main factors: inherently biological and also environmental. Both are important, but the implications of the second factor are much more interesting: intelligence can be developed.

    As for biological factors, it's quite obvious that humans are the most intelectually potent creatures on Earth. This is not even up for a debate. Not only the sheer intelectuial potential is great, we also have means to interract with out envoirment in meaningful way.

    Add those thing up and what you get? Massive intelectual potential and the fact that said potential can be developed. In short, most people have a potential do be highly intelligent. The thing is, still it is up partially to people and their decision, and partially to options they have in their envoirment. If a person has will and resources to be smart, the person will be just that. But most people that have below-average intelligence lack one or the other, or possibly both.

    I exclude, of course, exceptions like mental disorder or other cognitive problems. These are vast minority.

    The idea that figure like Peterson is needed because "people are stupid" works in cases people are willing to learn something and change something. It won't work in instances when people are ignorant and not knowledgeable due to not wanting to develop themselves further. Or having fallacy that they actually know a lot, which is common error among people who actually know little.

    Besides, you can still follow ideas even after critical estimation of said ideas. If you think about something and find it really good or benefictial, then why not? As long as you're not doing so blindly, it is okay.

    ThacoBell
  • DragonKingDragonKing Member Posts: 1,276
    As far as Jordan Peterson is doing, I respect what his doing especially watching many of the mischaracterizations not that happens to him in media like being called altright and racist.
    deltago said:


    And this is the argument. How are they being persecuted?

    Is it societies fault that they do not want to be known as a he, she or they?
    What happens when the person doesn't want to be known as zher either? Are they still be persecuted?


    I said they want to not be persecuted AND want to be respected (in the same way as other human beings).

    Using their preferred pronoun is a matter of respect.

    I am not sure what to think of the questions regarding societies fault. You seem to ask a rhetorical question about a claim no one made. Society is not responsible for what the needs of the transgender community are (which is what your question is about). It is responsible to accommodate the needs of the individual members to a reasonable amount.

    So what society should do is offer reasonable accommodations. Using a slightly unusual pronoun after being informed of an individual preference is not unreasonable. If you are a male you do not want to be referred to as "she". If you are a female you do not want to be referred to as "he". And if you can identify with neither, you do not want to be referred to as either. That is perfectly reasonable to me, and the amount of effort involved on my part is minimal.

    In fact, I would say that I have already spent more effort humoring your rhetorical questions than remembering the preferred pronouns of 10 different transgender individuals.
    Respect is earned not given, courtesy is given. We do t respect every man and woman we meet because they are a man or woman we respect them for the actions they do whole alive.

    The preferred pronoun thing isn't a matter of respect, it's a matter of controlling speech which is something that will never be respected by logical people. Also society doesn't have to accommodate anything it's not
    O_Bruce said:

    Intelligence depends on two main factors: inherently biological and also environmental. Both are important, but the implications of the second factor are much more interesting: intelligence can be developed.

    I agree both things are factors of intelligence but I would also say environmental is a bigger factor on this than biology since the environment one is raised in can actually encourage or hinder intellectual growth. It can also help grow a dependency mentality, a victim, or a strive to imorove.

  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,118
    Fardragon said:

    Fardragon said:

    What people really need to do is learn to think for themselves rather than listen to other people telling them what to think.

    Some people can't so what you going to do about them?

    I never understand this assumption that everybody, absolutely everybody can work things out and make their own minds up.
    I mean I can't be the only person who throughout life has met people, got to know people, who are genuinely stupid.
    They stumble through life being told "don't listen to anybody, there are no rules" and they are utterly lost. And often end up in a very bad way.

    IQ matters.

    The world doesn't exist only for those who have a reasonable IQ. Those might be the most vocal but really they are very narrow minded to believe that if society is created in their image and for them, the whole rest of humanity will be fine.

    Yeah sure if you are educated and middle class, it's absolutely wonderful to have no rules and no guidance.
    Not so good for those who simply can't work out the consequences of their actions and don't understand why things happen the way they happen.


    Because if you follow that line of thinking it leads to only two possible conclusions: Dictatorship or Eugenics (or three if you count both).
    Why so extreme?

    How about some balance?

    I don't think you would disagree that everybody can and has to learn things as they grow up.

    So when does the sudden change happen and people have no need to ever learn anything ever again?
    And teachers become dictators.

    Since when has it been the case that certain ideas/concepts and the writings that explore them are accesible only when you are young.
    Or even more pertently, the disregard of a lot that is written and you won't understand it until you are older. Should they all be discounted because "you have learnt to think for yourself" and don't need anymore insight?

    Very, very few people think for themselves and most who claim to are delusional. Conveniently discounting all that has influenced their thinking believing they have found some "ultimate truth", all by themselves, first time ever in the history of the world.

    Little less hubris would be most helpful for those who claim to "think for themselves". Should be filed under the same catagory as those who claim they have graduated from "the school of hard knocks" and "I know what I like".

    Thinking should always be elastic and able to encorporate ideas as you encounter them.

    ThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 5,947
    Only a fool would confuse "thinking for oneself" with not listening to others.

    ThacoBellDragonKing
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,118
    O_Bruce said:

    Intelligence depends on two main factors: inherently biological and also environmental. Both are important, but the implications of the second factor are much more interesting: intelligence can be developed.

    As for biological factors, it's quite obvious that humans are the most intelectually potent creatures on Earth. This is not even up for a debate. Not only the sheer intelectuial potential is great, we also have means to interract with out envoirment in meaningful way.

    Add those thing up and what you get? Massive intelectual potential and the fact that said potential can be developed. In short, most people have a potential do be highly intelligent. The thing is, still it is up partially to people and their decision, and partially to options they have in their envoirment. If a person has will and resources to be smart, the person will be just that. But most people that have below-average intelligence lack one or the other, or possibly both.

    I exclude, of course, exceptions like mental disorder or other cognitive problems. These are vast minority.

    The idea that figure like Peterson is needed because "people are stupid" works in cases people are willing to learn something and change something. It won't work in instances when people are ignorant and not knowledgeable due to not wanting to develop themselves further. Or having fallacy that they actually know a lot, which is common error among people who actually know little.

    Besides, you can still follow ideas even after critical estimation of said ideas. If you think about something and find it really good or benefictial, then why not? As long as you're not doing so blindly, it is okay.

    Intelligence as a biological factor matters.

    For years it's been pushed that if we can just get the enviromental factors sorted out, everybody can be intelligent.
    And who pushes that idea and makes their living out of that idea, intelligent people.

    I've yet to meet a truly stupid person who has ever turned around and said, well I'd be clever if it weren't for XY and Z. They know their limitations, they live with them everyday.

    In fact, if you look at the UK, this has been pushed so that people who aren't "smart" are considered lazy and incapable unless they can prove they are "intelligent" with pieces of paper.
    Because of course, we have evened out the enviromental factors so much.
    Children forced to stay on at school or in training until they are 18yo regardless of whether they benefit.

    Can you not see the link between further education for everybody and the idea that that's a way of promoting the enviromental factors of intelligence?
    Everybody get's degrees, therefore biology matters less.

    And who has it helped?

    Occupations and careers that were available to people without academic qualifications now advertise for graduates only. Entry level jobs restricted to graduates. University degrees devalued to the point where now employers don't consider applications from a lot of universities and they go straight in the bin.

    ThacoBellBalrog99
  • O_BruceO_Bruce Member Posts: 2,663
    1. Sure, biological factors matter. So do envoirmental ones.

    2. You said it. "Everyone CAN be intelligent". Just because they have possibility to turn out intelligent doesn't mean they will. Perhaps just saying envoirment is not precise enough, so I'll add this: by envoirmental factors you include not only potential possibilities, but also whether the subject will choose to use said possibilities. And while the effect might differ even if exposure and engagement is roughly the same, the biological factors are responsible for this.

    I think it is quite obvious who will turn out more cognitively capable: person who is mostly lazying around or who exposes himself/herself for different stimuli, seeks new knowledge, thinks about things a lot, analyze a lot, study and in general provides the mind a notalbe stimulation on daily basis.

    3. "Children forced to stay at school until they're 18". How terrible. I am truly shaking, especially since this remarks is clearly from emotions rather than logic.

    4. "Can you not see the link between further education for everybody and the idea that that's a way of promoting the enviromental factors of intelligence? Everybody get's degrees, therefore biology matters less."

    "Promoting"... Seriosuly, reality is a reality. It doesn't matter what you think or what you wish reallity to be. Briefly: there are studies showing improtance of biological factors (by correlaction of IQ of identical twins that were seperated, for example). There are studies showing importance of envoirmental factors (breeding multiple generation of rats in different envoirment, then observing the difference in result in few tasks). Since both factors showed some importance, it is only reasonable to conclude both factors matters.

    Please, stop this "promoting" nonsense. Science doesn't care what you think..


    Occupations and careers that were available to people without academic qualifications now advertise for graduates only. Entry level jobs restricted to graduates. University degrees devalued to the point where now employers don't consider applications from a lot of universities and they go straight in the bin.

    Nope. Nowadays people without notable education can still find a job, and many jobs that are requiring physical activity or very specific skills are becoming better and better paid. As for university graduates, due to sheer ammount of them it is only logical that you'll need a little more than your master degree to earn a good job. Instead of complaining, it is good idea to seek some advices how to get a job and not being rejected at the very start.

    Speaking about complaining. It sure is nice and easy, to complain about biology and ignore the fact that what you do with resources given to you affects you as well. It certainly helps you to avoid responsibility for your own life.

    DragonKing
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 10,881
    Let's not get personal, people. This discussion is not here for people to win debates.

    Before you post, consider whether you're offering your views on the subject, or if you're offering your views about other forumites. If it's the latter, make sure it is within the Site Rules first.

    JuliusBorisov
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,118
    O_Bruce said:

    1. Sure, biological factors matter. So do envoirmental ones.

    2. You said it. "Everyone CAN be intelligent". Just because they have possibility to turn out intelligent doesn't mean they will. Perhaps just saying envoirment is not precise enough, so I'll add this: by envoirmental factors you include not only potential possibilities, but also whether the subject will choose to use said possibilities. And while the effect might differ even if exposure and engagement is roughly the same, the biological factors are responsible for this.

    I think it is quite obvious who will turn out more cognitively capable: person who is mostly lazying around or who exposes himself/herself for different stimuli, seeks new knowledge, thinks about things a lot, analyze a lot, study and in general provides the mind a notalbe stimulation on daily basis.

    3. "Children forced to stay at school until they're 18". How terrible. I am truly shaking, especially since this remarks is clearly from emotions rather than logic.

    4. "Can you not see the link between further education for everybody and the idea that that's a way of promoting the enviromental factors of intelligence? Everybody get's degrees, therefore biology matters less."

    "Promoting"... Seriosuly, reality is a reality. It doesn't matter what you think or what you wish reallity to be. Briefly: there are studies showing improtance of biological factors (by correlaction of IQ of identical twins that were seperated, for example). There are studies showing importance of envoirmental factors (breeding multiple generation of rats in different envoirment, then observing the difference in result in few tasks). Since both factors showed some importance, it is only reasonable to conclude both factors matters.

    Please, stop this "promoting" nonsense. Science doesn't care what you think..


    Occupations and careers that were available to people without academic qualifications now advertise for graduates only. Entry level jobs restricted to graduates. University degrees devalued to the point where now employers don't consider applications from a lot of universities and they go straight in the bin.

    Nope. Nowadays people without notable education can still find a job, and many jobs that are requiring physical activity or very specific skills are becoming better and better paid. As for university graduates, due to sheer ammount of them it is only logical that you'll need a little more than your master degree to earn a good job. Instead of complaining, it is good idea to seek some advices how to get a job and not being rejected at the very start.

    Speaking about complaining. It sure is nice and easy, to complain about biology and ignore the fact that what you do with resources given to you affects you as well. It certainly helps you to avoid responsibility for your own life.
    Where you got the idea that I am complaining about biology heaven knows.
    I'd much, much rather there was far more attention shown towards raw IQ and an honest acknowledgement of what society needs to do about that rather than ineffectual social engineering.

    Wouldn't it be much fairer if it were acknowledged that some people are incapable of intellectual development and instead of disregarding their hopeless struggles, built systems where that didn't affect their worth.
    Paid them for their labour fairly because much of it is vital and important.

    Your post is rather an example of, "So what you're saying is"

    Balrog99DragonKing
Sign In or Register to comment.