Wednesday, 19 October 2016

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way but if that individual feels better about themselves then I am glad to do it.

Religious conservatives and others who love to stand on literalism are funny that way. To them the nuance that exists in the issue of transgenderism is trumped by only what they see on the surface and because they cannot relate it is not real. They don’t experience it or feel it's impact and so it is folly.

I understand the point of political correctness gone too far because I have observed it in other areas but here the stance makes less sense to me; most especially because of the pain this issue causes so many. To those who only think in black and white and stand on principle alone I would only ask: what is precisely your aim?

I am also tempted to ask: what is it about Toronto, Canada that breeds these attitudes?


  1. I am tracking online terms using a tool called Mention. It is amazing to see how often my search for autogynephilia brings up entries from the comments section of The Federalist, the site you are referring to.

    1. Jack the Federalist is a right wing rag with a high degree of insufferable articles full of derision for anything not fitting hetero-normative behaviour. They eat this stuff for breakfast and love Blanchard and Bailey just as much LOL....

  2. As I understand it, the issue that Professor Jordan Peterson has is not so much with whether trans and non-binary identities are legitimate, but that the propsed bill to be passed will cast a blanket too wide over what is considered hate speech, making any questioning of issues related to gender politics and identity a crime punishable by job loss. I think that he believes the debate about whether or not gender is binary is not quite closed, and bills like this will silence further discussion and conversation.