Skip to main content

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?


http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/17/canadian-professor-ignites-protests-refusing-use-transgender-pronouns/


Comments

  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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    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....

      Delete
  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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Going through his published papers Peterson's position is that social stability depends on conformity to a set of rules (in his case he argues selected 'christian' religious ones that he personally likes and benefits him should be followed) . That people who do not conform to them are actually 'mentally ill'.

    As a psychologist he should know the danger of this position, given that it was commonly used in the old USSR to oppress dissent...not the least Christian practitioners.

    By Paterson's argument, all women, LGBTI people, coloured, lower class, etc who rebel against the dominant structure because it treats them terribly are 'mentally ill'.
    That it is 'natural' that white, heterosexual, 'christian', middle/upper class males are the dominant group and everyone else, to maintain social stability, should just 'suck it up'; and accept their lowly place.

    He is basically a conservative authoritarian. In an interview he stated: "No. It’s not the role of society to make people feel included. That’s not the role of society. The role of society is to maintain a modicum of peace between people.". The method whereby that 'peace' comes from is sacrifice and conformity by the many to a society, as set by people like himself to their personal benefit benefit and that attempts to change it will be met by violence.

    Now where have we heard those arguments before?.

    He is no great hero for 'truth' ..he himself has shown incredible ignorance on many topics (some comments on physics were just embarrassing) which as a supposed academic is unforgivable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. which is like saying fit in or face the consequences. People are diverse by nature and using that understanding we should make every effort to be welcoming and understanding. It shouldn't surprise you Lisa that Peterson was invited to the program of idiot Steven Crowder who gleefully loves to poke holes in anything his square head doesn't comprehend..

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

the pseudoscience behind gender dysphoria

The real science as to what causes gender dysphoria still awaits.

Harry Benjamin was on to something except he didn’t have the scientific evidence to back up his suspicions hence, like a true scientist, he negated to draw conclusions. His hunch, based on treating so many patients over his lifetime, was that one is born with a predisposition to be gender dysphoric.

However, with inconclusive brain scans and no DNA marker (as of yet) we are left with believing the word of people who need help and only want to lead happy and productive lives.

The best we have been able to muster since Benjamin's death in 1986 was to amass statistics on who gets a boner imagining themselves as a woman which is in equal parts pathetic and disappointing. For this is not really science at all but is instead playing with interview data that doesn't point to anything definitive or conclusive. I have dealt with this problem at great length in my blog.

The whole thing started with Kurt Freund's obses…

looking past cross gender arousal

Jack’s latest Crossdreamers post got me thinking about cross gender arousal and how it could be avoided; also whether it even matters. This with particular focus on the inability to relate of someone on the outside looking in.

You see, sexuality is a very complicated thing to begin with and when you then add gender identity ambiguity it becomes a recipe to really confuse someone.

So imagine that you are a little boy who identifies as a girl but then along comes puberty and short circuits everything by having the sex you identify with also be the sex you are attracted to. For in essence this is what happens to all all male to female gender dysphoric trans persons who are attracted to women.

So I ask myself: can I imagine a scenario where this inherent contradiction would not produce sexual confusion? The answer is that I cannot.

I am in the unique position, like many of you, to have experienced an early identification with the feminine become sexualized later on. This brought confusion…

understanding the erotic component

I have written about crossed wires before in two separate posts. The idea is that one cannot pass through puberty and the development of sexual feelings for females and not have your pre-existing gender dysphoria be impacted through your psychosexual development. The hormone responsible for your libido is testosterone which is present in much stronger concentration in males and is why gynephilics are most likely to experience erotic overtones as the conflict between romantic external feelings and their pull towards the feminine become permanently intertwined.

Because I came from a deeply religious family where sex was not discussed much at all, I grew up with little access to information and was very much ignorant of matters relating to the subject. With no firsthand experience in intercourse until I married I was then faced with the reality that my ability to perform sexually had been deeply impacted by my dysphoric feelings. This began years of turmoil and self-deprecating thoughts …