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

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…

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.