Jordan Peterson's stance on trans people

lol I posted here instead of /lgbt/ because I wanted real answers, not political back and forth. Why is that wrong?

>I dont want to fly off my rocker at some dude on the wrong info.
Live and let live. Don't scold people for disagreeing with you, it's annoying. You have the right to do what you like with your body and your life, and others have the right to their own opinion on it. That's a two-way street. I don't support your desire to harass dissenters any more than I'd support somebody who wanted to harass you for being trans.

>"""""""Dont"""""""

Oh my goodness I dont want to! I want facts about what he thinks! not BS! God this Jow Forums board is ridiculous! Do you know what he thinks about this??? What does he actually think about it?

Not trying to be a dick, but you'd be better off just looking up Peterson's actual statements on the matter, rather than asking a bunch of anons to explain it to you

Peterson's stance is that he is indifferent to whether or not they exist, and that he thinks the social justice warriors are using them as a mouthpiece to control people. He has traditional conservative views on a lot of things (marriage, abortion, etc), and merely wants people to value truth (and subsequently responsibility) as the highest moral good.

Yeah, people on here tend to explain his views much less than they simply explain their opinions on him through disingenuous character attacks. It's pretty pathetic, because he is very clearly spoken on most of the issues people bring against him.

That's where every healthy, decent person should be.

They don't deserve contempt or anything, so compassion is a fine stance to take.
Being legally forced into pronouns is going to backfire way harder than anything else they could do.
The problem with transitions resolving mental issues is they seldom do and where they do, those issues may have been non-issues and the whole thing was just a cry for attention. The movement is largely espoused by single parents with a breadcrumb trail of regrets, and young adults/teenagers who are notorious for making decisions that garner them immediate heapings of attention.

Anyone in their right mind should be skeptical; but that doesn't mean they need to be hostile.

His stance is that trans people are people just like everyone else and there is no reason why the government should enforce everyone else to use certain words to address them because if people control what you day they control what you think and what you are allowed to communicate and there is no fucking way in hell those shit eating dog fuckers in government should have that kind of power over you

In interviews he's said that he's willing to call people by they're preferred pronouns, but that he refuses to compelled to do so.
To my knowledge his opinions on gender are that sex, gender, and orientation don't vary independently, except in a minority of people, but I don't know that he considers them mental illnesses. (I think he does, but that could be me projecting my views onto him) and he certainly appears to be compassionate towards them. But i think that's more like the compassion you have for a person with a mental illness than a person oppressed by society. (again that last bit might be me projecting)
As far as I can tell, you're right.

still no denial

Im honestly trying to. most of what im finding are self referential think pieces "for" and "against" about him. Or im finding "PETERSON DESTROYS SJW KEK" you-tube videos. I'm worried about geting a very biased take on him.

>liberals are bad.
When has he said that? I'm legitimately curious, being a liberal myself.
Are you sure that he wasn't talking about the Canadian Liberal party? Or is that what you meant?

Just watch him actually speaking, and nothing more. I refuse to watch those biased commentators too

He didn't say that. He considers himself a classical British liberal. The person who made that comment know very little about Peterson perhaps except for his central points about SJWs, and his distaste for young people becoming social/political activists.

As far as I can tell, most of Peterson's comments are about the crazy political/academic turmoil over the issue in Canada. He doesn't seem to have a problem with trans people themselves, he just has a problem with being legally/professionally compelled to speak a certain way about them.

more specifically, he campaigns against the neo-liberals who want to regulate every human action (hyperbole) so that it benefits the disadvantaged. like, people who want to instate laws that make calling a trans person by the wrong name illegal, or people who want to make it illegal to pay women less.

those kinds of "liberals" are totalitarian and absurd. ironically, they stand in the way of liberty. so what Jordan does for popularity is he spouts truisms. he's also been seen saying extremely common sense things (if you believe in common sense) like "the nazis were bad" or "post-modernists are deconstructive" in effect he isn't doing anything but getting a following of hostile goons, publicity via websites like YouTube.

right. he said things like "being a kid is beautiful because you can be anything, but it's also useless because you aren't anything."

and yeah if he thinks young people shouldn't be social/political activists, his behavior is absolutely to the contrary. judge a person by their actions, not their words. what has Jordon done in this whole ordeal except create publicity for himself and make money?

No, Peterson talks specifically about Nazis and Communists because he recognizes a trend of evil in people that leads them to be compelled even in modern times by those same belief systems, and he doesn't want a second Holocaust or Holodomor, courtesy of SJWs who graduate from college and proceed to make the world a worse-off place and one step closer to hell. His view of the world is a net good/net bad flux, and by campaigning against those things in a way that reduces their commonality in people, he creates a net good benefit for them and the world.

yeah that's his narrative but in reality I think he just makes publicity for himself and adsense money.

He has changed the lives of countless people, myself included. I grew up with more personal problems and self-deception than most people, and it is a result of watching his lectures that I've risen to getting a higher education degree in an elite program right now, directly opposed to the self-sabotaging and miserable autistic that I've been for the past twenty years.

He never wanted publicity. His rise to fame was simply a consequence of the high demand that people had for his philosophy and worldviews. He tackled issues like liberal control of speech with a magnitude and comprehension that has never been achieved previously. In Canada, the most cucked country outside of Britain and Germany, he has somehow retained his position while criticising the fundamentals of their liberal pigdogging. He was very comfortable with his life before this, and had (still has) a tenured university position.

There was the whole "bringing attention to bill c-16" thing.
That was pretty important.

"Controversial U of T Prof Now Making Over $500K a Year in Donations" - VICE News

hmm

Jow Forums is a nice group of people with lots of money for our friends because we aren't jobless commies.

The keyword is DONATIONS, nobody had to give him anything.

I kinda feel like we shouldn't assume people have malicious intentions, especially when that involves accusing them of lying and there's little to no evidence that they are. I'm not exactly his biggest fan, but I think it's pretty unfair to say he's scamming people.

Nobody forced people to donate to him. If i had the money, I'd do it too. You're acting like being recipient of money is proof of someone simply playing people for money, which if you look at his career, goals, and accomplishments, is total horseshit. Also, vice is a liberal rag whose only goal with Peterson has been to publish hit pieces. Yes. He pulls in a lot of money. Who gives a fuck?

It's completely dishonest. "Oh boy he makes big dollar, that must mean he was secretly jewing people the whole time" is just the most brain dead logic I can think of.

would you say I'm a postmodernist?

And? People like him so they fund his patreon. It's not like they're funding mighty number 9 or something.

No, I'd say you're a moron who wants to bring him down because you disagree with him in some way, or you're skeptical of him because so many liberal publications have portrayed him as the devil incarnate.

I don't disagree with anything but his conduct. He is a false guru that speaks in truisms.

If he speaks in truisms then why are they so controversial?

That is a golden question.

I can kinda see why you might feel that way. I would say that if you watch his lectures from when he was teaching a class, he's more technical and you can actually understand the real point he's making.

Thanks for giving your perspective on him. I appreciate your advice.

I did. It's interesting because he's saying common right-wing things, but in an empathetic way, and he actually explains to listeners who might not agree or understand. He's really making his expertise work for him. That's why he has the power to actually convert people from toxic forms of leftism all the way over to a right-wing stance, and that's probably why he is getting so much money.

Where I stand in this is that I'm still skeptical and not enfranchised, probably along with the majority of people. Yeah, politics can be fun and exciting, so many people would now be honored to share a room with a maniac who goes on rants about the dangers of post-modernism and totalitarianism.

look at this, for instance

sounds like the title of a, Amazon or Barnes and Noble self improvement novel.

Attached: 001378b23f.jpg (720x376, 52K)

"12 Rules For Life" essentially is a self-improvement book.

I would be interested to hear any criticism from you that goes beyond Peterson's "speaking in truisms". Or at least justify that claim to some degree.

Sort of an aside, but do you actually live in Canada or is he more of a foreign curiosity to you?

Just go and watch his videos. Even the SJW DESTROYED ones show actual clips of him speaking and he makes his stance very clear.

He got involved in the whole thing because compelled speech is a dangerous road to go down. The fact that the bill he was originally referring to was compelling certain speech toward trans people has nothing to do with it. People were (intentionally) misrepresenting his position to make him sound like a bigot instead of making him sound like a person who was worried about the long term effects of allowing a government to regulate speech.

As far as I can tell his stance on trans people as a whole is that the science isn't there to prove any of the claims that the trans/sjw community tends to make. His objection to using a student's preferred pronouns is that he hasn't seen any evidence that doing so would have a positive impact on that person, and that it would rather reinforce the mental imbalance causing their dysphoria in the first place.

But really the issue of trans people is in the minority of the topics he talks about and doesn't have a lot to do with the rest of his work.

You hate people donating their own money but I guarantee you love voting to raise taxes on everyone don't you, you stupid cunt

Let's be real here, he just hates people with more money than him.

Damn, after reading your post, i'd really like to sit down with him and talk this out in private. I'd love to get the nuance of what he means. There was this amazing interview done with Bret Weinstein, who had the most compassionate view point on the issue ever. It made me want to figure out what figures like Peterson actually think and not the the chaff that gets kicked up through this weird culture war we're having.

US. Canada is similar to the US in many ways though, obviously. Jordan's criticisms are totally understandable.

Goons detected. Calm down and go give Jordan $10.

Yeah, it's just that here "the dangers of postmodernism" are real. A guy in the next town over from me got convicted of hate speech for trying to prove a local mosque was spreading antisemitism in their Arabic sermons. A guy I know got kicked out of law school for 'raping' a girl, but he was in another city when the alleged rape occurred. So I get the sense that it's not quite the same in the US, with the first amendment and all.

>He like publicity and shit like that.
He never asked for any publicity. All he ever did was make a stand against something that he saw as extremely dangerous, informed by his decades of research into totalitarianism.

>he's really a bullshitter and an egotistical scumbag.
He is not egotistical. The only way he may appear like that, is because he refuses to take his lambasters lying down. He strongly believes his opinions are informed by scientific fact, and will fight accusations to the contrary. The resulting optics makes him look sensitive, and while some insults against him may have hit close to home, in general he's playing a game where he refuses to cede ground to his enemies - who mostly use ad hominem as opposed to reasoned refutation.

>and yeah if he thinks young people shouldn't be social/political activists, his behavior is absolutely to the contrary. judge a person by their actions, not their words. what has Jordon done in this whole ordeal except create publicity for himself and make money?
He has helped literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people sort their lives out and raise themselves from the hell of their cirumstances. This statement alone by you immediately reveals that you have done basically no research about this yourself, and are likely regurgitating blog posts or opinions from some political-community bubble.

>yeah that's his narrative but in reality I think he just makes publicity for himself and adsense money.
Amazing. Jordan Peterson does not monetize his YouTube channel. He offers all that content (hundreds of hours of lectures) for free. If you did a lick of looking yourself, you would have known this.

>"Controversial U of T Prof Now Making Over $500K a Year in Donations" - VICE News
Bloody hell.
Donations. Meaning, people loved his FREE YouTube videos and work so much, that they *voluntarily chose* to give him money. He never asked for it

Attached: w9m1idbpqo0z.jpg (999x1412, 262K)

There's no secret nuance to what he means. The man is a career clinical psychologist with tens of thousands of hours spent treating patients and it is his professional opinion that what he has seen in his line of work indicates that gender dysphoria is not something that can be "solved" by simple ideas like transitioning and being called by your preferred pronouns.

Now, to the point of him being 'egotistical', if you observe my post, it would appear that i'm some 'triggered' fanboy frothing at perceived slights against 'his guy'.
But it's not the case. This is what it looks like when you don't let bullshit or misinformation slide. This is exactly the case with him. He calls them out, they call him triggered.

Boy.

I heard that in Europe people are basically being arrested for voicing antisemitic opinions, on the basis that the opinions might amount to violence. Another privilege of mine, I have never personally seen antisemitism amount to violence. The holocaust was of course pretty violent. Should someone be arrested for voicing a hateful opinion, though? That's basically persecution for thought crimes. And somehow that's considered okay.

I'm pretty bothered by the Patriot Act, but people tell me that there would be many more 9/11s if we didn't pass it. There's still mass murder every other day here, but it's mostly contained to where the very poor and uneducated live. Makes you think.

Do you have an opinion on these violations of personal freedom, in the name of the greater good? It makes me feel small, and uncertain about society. One thing I try to remember is that my country was never perfect or without corruption. We do still have free speech and the right to at least some kind of arms, so that is far above where many other places stand in terms of freedom.

The world IS predominantly conservative.

From what your saying of him I'd generally agree, its not a simple fix at all but its what we have. But as a trans person I know not to judge a book by whatever cover its had put on it. In my experience there's rarely no nuance, and if there isnt then people arnt exploring it in depth.

>its not a simple fix at all but its what we have

Of what I've heard him say, his opinion is more like "it's not a fix"

We're talking about a career clinical psychologist who has spent tens of thousands of hours treating patients, and it's his opinion that what he has seen throughout his career indicates that dysphoria is more like a mental issue than something that is solved by transitioning genders. You don't have to agree with or like that, but if we're talking about someone with a lot of experience behind what he is saying.

I consider it progressive when conservatives are compromising and making concessions. It's like a tide that can be resisted but not turned. If masses of people want a certain kind of social progress, they seem to be slowly getting it, so long as it isn't freedom or income equality.

>income equality

Oh boy here we go. Put down the kool aid.

Maybe I just don't like what he does. Is it expected that my post was supposed to be some kind of brilliant critique that turns all of his fans away from him? You're right, the only real way that he's divisive is that some people think his fandom is goofy and others don't consider themselves goofy.

I just dont think he's right about this. i respect his experience but super skeptical since its not matching what im seeing in the literature or in the stuff coming from other clinical psychologist's with equal or greater experience.

some halfassed interjection at my factual use of a word

like, I understand McDonald's naturally doesn't pay as much as stock exchange. It doesn't take an intellectual to realize this

I'm a pretty old school liberal, so I might differ from you a bit, but I'll try to summarize my opinions on restricting freedoms.
The role of government is to provide enough order such that people can effectively use their freedom. Like if everyone is allowed to drive wherever, I can't get where I want to go, but if everyone has to drive inside the lines, I can get to the store alive. So that seems like a good trade.
As for the patriot act specifically, I don't know the ins and outs of it, so I can't tell if you're giving up more freedom than you're getting, but if you are then it's not worth it. Don't get to worried about America's future, everyone else exports the people who care about freedom to you guys.

>Is it expected that my post was supposed to be some kind of brilliant critique
It is expected, as is in general when talking about anything, that your statements be *fair* and *accurate*.

Your essentially calling him a contrarian charlatan conman, when most of all he has ever done was help (clinical practice), teach (professorship), guide (publishing of self-help book started *before* he ever became famous), and protect (stand against authoritarian ideology), was neither.

Watch this video and understand who it is you're talking about.
youtube.com/watch?v=pGk2jjZSaq8

I think everyone has an opinion and we know nowhere near enough to say definitively that any group of people has a mental disorder nor can we say that body dysphoria is a psychiatric abnormality or something that occurs in nature. Also, keep in mind most trans people don't get sexual reassignment surgery. To my understand I think some people just don't want to be identified or a woman or as a man and just want to adopt the characteristics and persona of a different gender. I think sex and gender get mixed up in this conversation a lot. I'm also not aware of any legislation in the works or even being proposed to make it illegal to use incorrect pronouns. I'm not sure where you're getting that information from. I dunno. I think that people are very attached to ideas of what is "normal". This same kind of vitriol and backlash happened 60 years ago when segregation is being dismantled. I'm not a scientist nor am I a psychologist. I'm also not going to pretend that the little online research and anecdotal observations I've gathered is enough of a foundation to base an opinion on. Legally, we're still in murky waters but I think even Jordan Peterson would admit that socially, movements like trans identity are a pretty routine part of socioeconomic evolution. Its happened before and it will happen again.

Attached: 1510444724103.gif (480x270, 1.95M)

>when most of all he has ever done was help (clinical practice), teach (professorship), guide (publishing of self-help book started *before* he ever became famous), and protect (stand against authoritarian ideology), was neither.

That's a pretty subjective observation. There is a solid basis to support the argument that he's an opportunistic panderer that uses the sensitivities and pent up frustration of disenfranchised men to sell books and rake in appearance fees. I personally don't think its a coincidence that a relatively unknown professor suddenly skyrockets to infamy by selling a very specific ideal during a time when it is most revered by a specific kind of rampant fan base. That's just me. I don't think anyone is doubting that he's smart, I just think that its pretty decidedly simple-minded to ignore the obvious convenience, tone and timing of his messages. He makes a lot of money doing this. You're a real dullard if you think that he does what he does this 100% out of the goodness of his heart and concern for mankind.

Not OP, but in Canada, (mine and Peterson's country) under bill C-16 it became hate speech to not use a someone's preferred pronouns. It was his strong public opposition to that bill that made him famous in the first place.

>we know nowhere near enough to say definitively that any group of people has a mental disorder

I understand where you are coming from but "mental disorder" is a standard which vast majority of authorities (i.e. qualified psychologists and researchers) agreed upon; therefore, something meets the mental disorder standard qualities, it's objectively so because this is something humans created and the concept of objective is uniquely human as well.

That a small subset of the population is legitimately trans while there are hucksters literally encouraging chemical castration of children who aren't even old enough to vote.

Why does everyone ignore the c-16 thing? That's what he got famous for and at the time there was a solid chance that he'd lose his job or get arrested. Surely that wasn't some kind of elaborate scam?

Why do you think it's more likely that Peterson is being disingenuous than it is the opposite? Your argument is rooted in paranoia until you provide some evidence.

Firstly, its a pretty disingenuous thing to say he became famous because of one solitary thing. That may be how he gained notoriety but its extremely one dimensional to only analyze his initial rise and not the trajectory of his whole career. I'm not claiming my perspective is the only right one I'm just saying there is a solid basis for an argument concerning his integrity.

>I understand where you are coming from but "mental disorder" is a standard which vast majority of authorities (i.e. qualified psychologists and researchers) agreed upon; therefore, something meets the mental disorder standard qualities

A million times wrong. Firstly, you need to remove the word "objectively" when speaking about mental illnesses. Yes, a lot of mental illnesses are fairly predictable and have consistent signs and symptoms but not all mental illnesses like depression or schizophrenia have a physiological component. Clinical depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain. We know this because we've observed and measured it. Schizophrenics have physically different brain structures than people without schizophrenia. We know this because we've done brain scans.

The tricky part about mental illnesses is that people are often diagnosed with several. This means that it is nearly impossible, even for a mental health professional, to attribute one symptom to one disorder and another symptom to a different one. To claim that someone with clinical depression, body dysmorphia, and bipolar disorder participates in a certain behavior because of one and not the other is a medical pitfall. While I understand you're trying to establish the guidelines of mental health diagnosis I would remind you that mental health is a relatively new science. We know very little about the human brain and our understanding of disorders changes constantly. I would exercise caution before trying to use the concept of objectivity when claiming that a mental illness is "created by humans"

Hmm. The crying was impressive, and he is obviously very intelligent.

Because he talks like he's on acid and *is* and manipulating the public with impressive language. You can call it paranoia if you want. I never said he was a bad guy.

Mate, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously with "He talks like he's on acid". The world would fall apart if that were sufficient to discredit a person's opinion.

>Why do you think it's more likely that Peterson is being disingenuous than it is the opposite? Your argument is rooted in paranoia until you provide some evidence.

Because the behavior of opportunists is a pretty predictable thing. In my mind, he may whole heartedly believe some of the things he says, sure, but I also can't ignore the entire trajectory of his career. He reminds me a lot of news pundits and other "anti-sjw" figureheads who, while they may speak passionately at times and even occasionally make good points, still make a lot of money off of their rabid fan base. I'm not making an argument, I'm stating my opinion. I'm not interested in convincing you to have my opinion. All I'm saying is that its purposefully negligent to believe that there is a 0% chance that he participates in even a modicum amount of pandering. If believing he's a charlatan is paranoid then believing he can do no wrong and is solely motivated by altruism is delusional.

Well, I agree with his position. I'm an American so I'm not well versed on Canadian law but that does seem absurd to me.

I think your impression is pretty spot-on. He's not going to call anyone "them," "xim" or "sie" as a replacement for him/her, but he doesn't mind calling a transwoman "she" under anything resembling normal circumstances.

And if we assume for the sake of argument that Peterson is a complete charlatan and believes none of what he says, do you think that makes it any less valuable to a person or people that it 'helps'? I'm not sure what your problem is. If people are responding positively to a message, does it even matter whether the speaker believes in it?

vocaroo.com/i/s1eKaqKrt3DQ

>subjective observation
Once again, do a smidgen of investigation yourself and read peoples' inumerable positive comments about him; the accounts of him helping their lives

>solid basis
And what would that be? Up till now, the only things you have provided are emotiveness and misinformation

>opportunistic panderer that uses the sensitivities and pent up frustration of disenfranchised men to sell books and rake in appearance fees
He has been saying his spiel for *decades*. You can pull up lectures by him, from 25 years ago, and its the same thing.

>relatively obscure professor
How many professors do you know are relatively known?
Regardless, in Peterson's case, he was a frequent guest on a Canadian national TV station. His lecture series was aired on national TV 20 years ago. He has been an advisor to the United Nations. He's been a psychology consultant for massive companies. He is the foremost academic in the niche field of religious/jungian mythology. As I said before, he started writing his latest book, *before he became super-famous*.
All before he ever said anything about any draconian law.

> I just think that its pretty decidedly simple-minded to ignore the obvious convenience, tone and timing of his messages. He makes a lot of money doing this. You're a real dullard if you think that he does what he does this 100% out of the goodness of his heart and concern for mankind.
This is absolutley absurd. It's like, "Here's this message I've been investigating for the last 40 years, deeply believe in, and have been disseminating for free for the last 25. Suddenly, an audience of millions are listening to what I say. WELL, I guess I'd better shut up, just in case I *gasp* accidentally happen to *make money off of it*.

To conform to your ridiculous rubric for moral integrity, he would have to *actively erase his previous work to prevent revenue*.
And guess what? *He still didn't monetize his YouTube channel in response to the new popularity*

I also doubt that he would necessarily have a problem with making money off his work. It's not his main topic but he does talk about capitalism > socialism occasionally.

>The crying was impressive
Jesus Christ.

>I never said he was a bad guy.
Because 'egotistical, bullshitting scumbags' are just stand-up people, right?

>emotive ad-hominem
>misinformation
>self-contradiction
>conspiracy theory

Seriously, I think you're the one on drugs here.

Lol

are we trying to have a discussion or an argument? I don't understand why you're so anally blasted at the idea that he seems like a snakeoil, self-promoting guy.

Because you are ignorant enough to simply level an accusation like that instead of actually researching who he is, what he does, and what he has accomplished. It is ultimate laziness, with a side of self aggrandizing bullshit. It's easy to insult, but it's hard make an argument, and so far you have found some very clever insults.

>are we trying to have a discussion or an argument?

Call it a heated discussion.

I took issue with your slandering of what I believe to be a fundamentally good man.

I asked you for your reasoning for your opinion; you gave none, slandered some more, then insulted me.

So you can see how my response can be construed as an argument at this stage.

the part you are missing is he misrepresents a law that would give basic protections for that group of people and claimed in bad faith it is a matter of speech being imposed on him, the law has to do with harassing other people, you cant claim your individual freedom can undermine other people's basic rights of not being harassed

the law has to do with intentional repeated harassment, and he misrepresented it in a ridiculous way that sounds logical if the only things you hear about this situation come from him and from other people who hate trannies

just look at his interaction with the canadian lawmakers, every single claim he makes is demolished, he backpedals to say "its confusing" or suggests ridiculous things that have not happened since the law went into effect

There is no basic right to not be harassed, first of all. What constitutes offense and harassment varies from person to person.
The gender debate has been ongoing for centuries, and putting something into law that forces people to take a side of it is essentially writing into legislation 'this side of the debate wins and is good, and this is a government endorsement of that ideological stance'.

Secondly, the law is interpreted via a set of standards by a 'human rights commission' whose very wording and definitions go in complete opposition to the majority of scientific evidence. Namely, that gender and sex vary independently (when they absolutely do not). There is nobody denying that transgender people exist, etc. This is merely about faulty legislation, with a bad agenda, endorsed by people who want to silence their ideological critics. Pronouns are not part of someone's identity, they are part of other peoples' language, and language is something we use to express ideas. Without people being able to freely express their ideas, even about transgender people, society will slowly start to degrade into an echo chamber.

God I fucking hate the human rights commission. The only word in there title that's true is 'commission', those cunts don't give a shit about human rights.

assuming yes on #1 but can't recall him speaking explicitly about it

definitely yes on #2 - see - fascism

unknown on #3

>someone gets internet famous

guyz it wuz planned all along!!11!1

Attached: 1523036716716.png (500x559, 176K)