Jordan Peterson, a professor of psychology at The University of Toronto, has recently garnered some attention because of his beliefs on the topic of sex and gender. Peterson has come under fire because he opposes Bill C-16 of the Canadian Human Rights Code and Criminal Code, legislation whose recent passing by the Canadian federal government made discrimination on the basis of gender identity or gender expression a criminal act in Canada. He appears to think that the recent addition of particular identities to the Codes will, in practice, impinge on his freedoms of speech.
Peterson has also come under fire because of his preemptive refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns, including in instances where an individual prefers them and explicitly requests use of them; that is, even before anyone requests that Peterson use a certain pronoun, other than the typical “he” or “she,” Peterson refuses to use it. Peterson seems to think that the rationale for the use of gender-neutral pronouns is flawed, irrational, and unscientific. Moreover, he has characterized people who prefer the use of gender-neutral pronouns as “self-aggrandizing” and “narcissistic,” and perhaps a particular kind of irrational.
It's surprising to me that so few philosophers have responded to Peterson's arguments, given how well-known he appears to be and how convincing some people find his arguments. Indeed, since very few philosophers have taken issue with Peterson’s arguments, I will present the fallacious claims about sex and gender that he makes, as well as argue that his preemptive refusal to use preferred gender pronouns is philosophically spurious. I will not tackle the issues Peterson has with Bill C-16—although I think that his reasoning, when fully developed, is unsound.
Contrary to Peterson’s beliefs, there are good reasons to use the preferred gender pronouns of others. In addition, the reasoning that Peterson offered for why people should not use them is unthoughtful, vulnerable to strong philosophical objections, unsound, and in many cases invalid.
Peterson presented his reasons why he will not use preferred pronouns and why others shouldn’t either in an article that he wrote for The Toronto Sun (here). Each justification he offered, I think, lacks philosophical rigor and are vulnerable to strong philosophical objections. In the Sun article, Peterson wrote the following to justify his preemptive refusal:
I regard artificially formulated words such as the so-called “gender-neutral” pronouns as part of the vanguard of political correctness which has historical roots that disturb me (the association with Marxism) and psychological motivations that I do not trust (based as they are on an excess of care best devoted to infants and grounded in an intense resentment of anyone who has become successful for any reason whatsoever).
On Artificiality:
Part of Peterson’s reasoning appears to be that some preferred pronouns are "artificial." In particular, Peterson rightly thinks that some gender-neutral pronouns like "ne", "nem", "nir", "nirs", "nemself" and others are “artificially formulated.” He then concludes that it is unreasonable to use them. Presumably, if this is part of the justification for preemptive refusal, then we should reject using words that are artificially formulated. But artificiality isn’t a good reason in itself for not using a term. Several words are artificially formulated that we are rational to use.
For example, paleontologists often uncover new creatures that have shared traits between two different species in evolutionary history. Often, the archeologists refer to these new creatures with a new species name. Are they irrational for doing so? No! Is the word made up? Yes! Should paleontologists refrain from using these new terms? I see no reason why they should do so, especially since introducing these new terms allows scientists to clarify distinctions in evolutionary history. Similarly, I’d imagine new gender terms allows individuals to clarify and recognize relevant differences regarding gender and sex. So, artificiality is not a good reason to refuse to use a term. We use words that are artificial all the time, and we are not wrong for doing so.
On So-Called “Neo-Marxism”:
Peterson also argues that the use of preferred gender pronouns is an aspect of some “political correctness” movement, which has its historical roots in Marxism. There are two claims in this premise: a claim about political correctness and a claim about Marxism. Both claims are suspicious, and Peterson has not given any principled argument for why either is plausible.
First, we can ask what exactly Peterson thinks Marxism is. Karl Marx was a theorist about capitalism (specifically 19th-century capitalism) and a philosopher. Like other philosophers, Marx had some interesting things to say, and like other philosophers, we can read him, consider what he wrote, engage with his ideas, and perhaps even disagree with him in several areas. Indeed, people should read his works and get what they can from them. However, he is not God, and I'm sure very few of the people that Peterson might classify as Marxist worship him as such. Surely, a large number of people who use preferred pronouns don’t agree with everything Marx wrote. Some of them might not have issues with capitalism and other gender theorists (even as early as Iris Marion Young) explicitly reject many of Marx’s views on several important points.
More importantly, Peterson has done little of the necessary philosophical work to present good reasons to believe the use of preferred pronouns stems from Marxist thought. In fact, when we look closely at Marx’s writings, we can see that Marx himself had virtually nothing to say about gender identities or gender pronouns. Furthermore, the relationship between scholars on gender and Marx is tenuous at best. Moreover, historically, even some commonly held beliefs about gender (for example, the distinction between biological sex and gender) actually stems from his domain (psychology), when psychologists and medical professionals were confronted with the reality of intersexed individuals and sought to classify and treat them. If this is true, then it appears that some beliefs that inform the usage of preferred pronouns stem from his own academic domain and not Marxist thought. Thus, Marxist and other similar derivatives (neo-Marxist, cultural Marxist, communist and so on), as a point of criticism, should be treated with great suspicion, if not outright rejected.
On Political Correctness:
In addition to his vague reference to neo-Marxist thought, Peterson neither analyzes the concept of “political correctness” (PC) nor defines it to any degree in his reflections on the topic. Perhaps what he means is that to be PC is to be authoritarian: that is, maybe he thinks political correctness is reducible to authoritarianism. But if we follow this line of thought, and use the California F Scale to measure authoritarianism, Peterson’s own views on gender appear to indicate that even he is authoritarian to some degree. First, he holds traditional views on gender, in the sense that he assumes that there can be only two categories of gender, every person must fall into one of these two categories, and both categories are reducible to biological traits. Second, his opinion appears to demonstrate resistance to new ideas or concepts that challenge his own: the very idea of preemptive refusal seems to be an indication of this. On the California F Scale of authoritarian personalities, both features are prominent.
More pointedly, I’m inclined to think the term political correctness has become philosophically barren. Perhaps it had a clear and useful formulation in the past, but today the term is subject to overuse and unthoughtful abuse. Much like "neo-Marxist", it’s unclear what the term distinctively picks out, and it’s not clear that the traits that the term purports to pick out are accurately picked out. In fact, the term politically correct is usually used as an exonym: a phrase that is applied to perceived outgroup members, with all the intergroup biases that accompany it. Even valid and sound philosophical criticisms with some deceptive twists of logic can be classified under the vague notion of “political correctness.” Yet, no modern individual seriously refers to themselves as PC or sincerely endorses being politically correct. Therefore, political correctness (much like Marxist), as a point of criticism, should be treated with great suspicion, if not outright rejected.
On The Pathological Desires of Trans People:
The final point that Peterson makes in the Sun article is that extremely infantile character traits and resentment of other people’s success motivate those who use gender-neutral pronouns. But Peterson has given very little reason to believe this, and upon critical evaluation, we can see that the claim is likely false. Individuals who prefer gender-neutral pronouns are adults in every psychological capacity and their psychological motivation to use and request the use of certain pronouns is grounded in their desire to be classified, identified, and recognized by others. There is no evidence that this desire to be classified and recognized as a particular gender identity stems from resentment of success; so, it’s somewhat of a mystery where Peterson gets the belief that motivates this bold assertion, if not simply from pathologization of a group that he disagrees with or doesn’t particularly like.
It is very troubling that Peterson, a prominent clinical psychologist, has pathologized trans individuals simply because they want to be recognized as a gender that doesn’t match the sex they were assigned at birth. There is a well-documented and a long, dark history of the pathologization and subsequent mistreatment of transgender individuals and intersexed individuals by professionals and clinical psychologists. This pathologization has served to compound the rejection and denial that transgender people often face. A pressing worry that I have is that the unthoughtful pathologization of trans people in which Peterson engages is a continuation of that troubling legacy.
On Linguistic Profligacy:
Peterson claims that the use of gender-neutral pronouns makes the use of pronouns excessively complicated and untenable. To demonstrate this, Peterson refers to 30 possible gender identities that he claims are under legal protection in New York. Peterson’s worry is that the recognition of 30 identities and 30 corresponding terms makes language excessively complex. However, it’s unclear that all 30 gender identities each require different pronoun usages. For example, individuals who crossdress are included in the 30 possible gender identities that Peterson considers. But many crossdressing males refer to themselves as male and prefer others to refer to them as such. In other words, no new pronoun is needed to refer to these crossdressers. Peterson is wrong to assume that the 30 possible identities cleanly map onto 30 new pronouns. Although they would have to map on in this way for his claim about linguistic profligacy to be plausible, many identities don’t map on in this way. Quite a few of them directly borrow from traditional linguistic conventions that we already use.
There is also reason to doubt that the addition of novel gender-neutral terms makes the language excessively complicated and untenable. We already use gender-neutral terms to describe certain people: “police officer,” “mail carrier,” “sales associate,” “flight attendant,” and “server.” The inclusion of these titles has not, to my knowledge, resulted in any collapse of meaning, nor has it made referring to these titles any more challenging. In fact, when it specifically comes to neutral pronouns, I’m rarely asked to use some of them, even though I would agree to use them when reasonably requested to do so. This is hardly the “assault on the structure of language” that Peterson dramatically diagnoses.
Perhaps what he means is that individuals who wish others to use their preferred pronouns force people to memorize every possible gender identity and that this task of memorization is overly demanding for language users. Indeed, Peterson has made this argument elsewhere to characterize the apparent unreasonableness of a pronoun request. But this is remarkably close to a strawman argument since it mischaracterizes what trans or gender-queer people desire and argue. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has claimed that Peterson and others need to memorize all possible gender identities. What they desire is that other people refer to them by their preferred term, when reasonably requested to do so. There is a difference: the only memorization that needs to be done is a particular term that is requested by a specific individual if requested at all.
Invalid Arguments:
With these points aside, many of the reasons Peterson presents for not using gender-neutral pronouns don’t lead to the conclusion that he or any of us should not to use preferred gender pronouns. For example, even if Marxist thought somehow inspired gender-neutral pronoun usage, it’s not at all clear that this implies that we shouldn’t use preferred gender pronouns. Or consider the claim that a linguistic usage is somehow “artificial” or made up. This does not necessarily imply that I should not to use the term. So, Peterson’s stated premises don’t lead to the conclusion he wants to reach, which makes many of his arguments invalid.
The Positive Case For Using Preferred Gender Pronouns:
Are there good reasons to use preferred gender pronouns? I think the answer to that question must be “yes, there are.” First, we do use preferred gender pronouns all the time, for many members of a particular gender. My brother is a male, and I refer to him as “he.” He prefers to be called a man, and prefers to be referred to by the pronoun “he.” He also presents as a male, has XY chromosomes, and he likely has fairly typical hormone profile of men his age. I refer to my brother using his preferred gender pronoun and it is a privilege that I also grant to many of my students, regardless of race, disability, or religion. I am not appealing to biology to make my point, but rather to egalitarianism: I have used the gender pronouns and other gendered terms that some people prefer to be referred to as since I learned a language; I see no problem with extending this practice to more people, even if the term is new or novel. By using a preferred or even neutral pronoun, I am simply treating people with equal consideration. So, there are egalitarian reasons to use preferred gender pronouns.
When I use the pronouns and other terms that people identify with, I promote actions that fulfill the interests and preferences of individuals who prefer to be called by a specific term. I really have no reason to refuse to fulfill their interests or preferences. The preemptive refusal to use preferred pronouns and other gendered terms imply that in doing so I treat individuals unequally (for no good reason) and undermines the fulfillment of these individual’s interests and preferences. According to one ethical theory, we shouldn’t refuse to fulfill the interests of others, when we have no reason to because it violates utilitarian principles to maximize preferences and interests for the most amount of people. So, there are utilitarian reasons for using preferred gender pronouns. There are also good Kantian reasons to use preferred gender pronouns: doing so respects trans peoples’ autonomy and treats them as ends in themselves. While Peterson might be legally allowed to refuse to use preferred gender pronouns preemptively, it’s clear to me that there is a basis for thinking that he is morally wrong in doing so.
Although Peterson appears to think that people who don't readily identify as male or female are wrong not to do so, he has not given any good reason for his position in this regard. He seems to believe that some transgender individuals are delusional and have false beliefs about their gender, their sex, and themselves. But, he has not presented evidence for the single biological trait (or collection of traits) that all males (or females) have and only males (or females) have, evidence that might count as proof that these individuals have delusional beliefs. He has also not presented evidence of the existence of a biological essence of maleness or of femaleness that these deluded individuals actually have. But, it is the existence of such essences that his position requires. I (and many other academics in the non-essentialist tradition) have serious doubts that anyone can find one such trait or essence (let alone many features) that can act as a membership card to being male or female.
In short, Peterson has not done the philosophical or scientific work required to ground his belief that transgender individuals with pronoun preferences have delusional beliefs. Nor has Peterson presented a convincing theory about what makes a particular individual male or female (and why we are restricted to these two classifications). He has not presented reasons to believe that gender identities reduce to biological properties, nor has he offered any comprehensive metaphysical or ontological theory on sex or gender. In the absence of such a theory, we are left with very thin reasons to think that particular transgender people are wrong about their beliefs or that he is right to preemptively refuse to use particular novel pronouns. We are also left with very thin reasons to preemptively refuse to promote the interests and preferences of trans or genderqueer people who may not strongly identify as male or female.
At best, Peterson can argue that he simply doesn’t want to use certain terms. However, a desire not to use a particular term isn’t a good reason to refuse to use it, and it’s certainly not a good reason to think that we shouldn’t use a term. We, therefore, have very little reason not to use preferred gender pronouns, and we have a few positive reasons to use them. Therefore, I conclude that—as a cis person—I should use preferred gender pronouns(and so should you).
posted by Ray
I have heard Jordan Peterson talk at length about his objection to bill C-16, and I believe the sentence you selected to represent his beliefs is insufficient and doesn't represent what I have heard him say. For instance, his biggest objection, I believe, is his belief that the bill is compelled speech, meaning that someone would be forced to say something that they don't believe in. In the US an example would be forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school, which our supreme court decided was unconstitutional. This compelling of speech would also explain his comparing the bill to Marxism. It seems to me that you cherry-picked one sentence from the vast amount writing and debates he has participated in explaining his position, and are arguing against this one sentence. He has said a lot more about it, and his arguments are compelling (it's easy to google for anyone interested.) Also context matters.
Posted by: Susan | 10/04/2017 at 02:13 AM
Hi Susan,
I think Ray intends to respond to you. In the meantime, however, I wanted to share with you this article (with video) that draws attention to more of Peterson's sexist views as well as his remarkable ableism: http://pressprogress.ca/university-of-toronto-professor-men-cant-control-crazy-women-because-men-cant-fight-them/
Posted by: Shelley | 10/07/2017 at 09:00 AM
Hi Susan,
Thanks for the comment. From what I gather, your initial worry is that I am cherry picking some quotes of Jordan Peterson, and haven't represented his views accurately. You also appear to suggest that I am only using a small sentence and paragraph to represent Peterson's entire view on the matter.
I think first of all, it's important to remember that I am focusing primarily on his arguments for why he doesn't use gender-neutral pronouns, not his views on Bill C-31. I believe I made this point at the beginning of my post. The worry Peterson presents about so-called "compelled speech" is about the Bill, which I didn't want to address in this post.
I also want to make it clear that I've done a lot of research on Peterson's arguments, beyond the article I mention in this post, and as far as I can tell, Peterson commonly uses these talking points whenever he discusses the matter.
For several years, for example, Peterson has railed on about so-called "Neo-Marxists." He presents this worry in the debates he had at the University of Toronto and at Queen's lawschool. Additionally, he mentions this worry on Joe Rogan's podcast, and at multiple lectures he's given aren't even about pronouns. For example, he mentions Marxism, when discussing the reason he wants to start a new University.
Additionally, Peterson mentions "Political Correctness" on more than one occasion. He mentioned this in his debates, interviews he's given with Gad Saad, The Rebel news channel and beyond. The worry about preferred pronouns making language untenable was raised at his debate at Queen's law school and on Joe Rogan's podcast in both of his appearances there. He specifically brings up the 30 protected gender identities in new york on his first appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, the Queen's law school debate, and in the article I've linked to.
He's also offhandedly referred to biological essentialism in his most recent interview with Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein and in his discussions with Gad Saad. In one instance, I've seen him accuse his detractors as equating biological essentialism with nazism, which is vague, misleading, and downright wrong. There is a rich and detailed philosophical literature on biological essentialism, and I'd encourage anyone to read up on it, to get a deeper understanding of this issue (a good place to start is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Species").
Thus, I am most certainly not drawing from one limited source, but several. I'm also afraid I don't follow where I'm going wrong here. Does Peterson mention "Neo-Marxism" in his talks? Does he ever define it and unpack the notion? If not, my point remains that he's simply using the term in a vague and unhelpful way. Does Peterson not suggest that the inclusion of gender-neutral pronouns makes language untenable (take a look at the debate at Queen's when he explicitly presents this argument)? The point I'm making is that there are multiple instances where Peterson has used some variation of the points and arguments I mention in my post, and he's done so rather unthoughtfully. To the extent that he uses these arguments, my objections remain.
Posted by: Ray Aldred | 10/18/2017 at 03:45 AM
If I understand right, the problem with Jordan Peterson's arguments is that they boil down into undefined terms that alone don't call for the refusal of someone to be refused the courtesy equivalent to a nickname.
I can see where you can come to that conclusion with the frame of reference being that Jordan was arguing for the refusal to call people what they are. His words all have enough specificity for there to be seen that his problem is gender-neutral pronouns. He even says that he would not call someone something other than he or she.
Although with the frame of reference that these words are instated by law, by regulation. The argument that artificial words come into use all the time doesn't matter because those words aren't forced to be used under the punishment of fine or community service. It would be like making a typo in your science paper and being forced to pay $100 for not using the correct term. With people, you expect a certain amount of leeway. Where if you call someone he or she once, and they aren't of the pronoun, they wouldn't make charges. They would just ask you to call them something else and move on. Which would be the "natural" way a new pronoun would be formed - the word itself would still be artificial, I'd think all words are. If this wasn't under regulation, I'm sure Jordan would have no problem at all calling people what they want to be called. It's the thought that something as small as pronouns being regulated under penalty of fine would be an easy precursor to controlling more language. Which is Authoritarian. Perhaps I'm wrong about the fallibility of Jordan's statement, but it doesn't make sense to change pronouns. The most common use of pronouns is when your not sure who you are talking about or if someone else doesn't know who you are talking about or if the person isn't with you. Until gender neutral becomes visually distinguishable from he or she, referring to them as such would be confusing in an environment where the person in question is unknown. It would be comical if a gender-neutral person is being accused of a crime in a court-scene and the victim said "He did it" with an accusing finger. The victim unwittingly committed a crime right there, and you know that the gender-neutral person would make charges (any lawyer worth their salt would jump at the technicalities), especially if it stalled the victim's case against them. So changing pronouns doesn't help distinguish the gender-neutral identity as much as it let's other people get after you for not using certain words, thus compelled speech. It would be better just to call someone by name than use a pronoun. I don't call my sister by she. I use her name. Only if I talk about her with others would there ever be a need to say she, her, hers, etc. So I don't think the law or their use is for the better of the trans community. It's so that the trans community can grow more teeth, which can be argued to be better for the trans community but I think it puts more crap on the label of being trans. The trans community is pretentious about their pronouns therefore trans people are pretentious. Which is just wrong. Trans people want to be respected as another gender and believe that because male and female have pronouns they should too. Which I can get behind. That makes sense.
It shouldn't be the government's job to regulate pronouns though. If they start adding pronouns to include gender-neutral people in laws that's fine. Saying his/hers/*insert gender-neutral pronoun version of his/hers here* then that would be real progress and I would say a "natural" formation of language because a group of people started using a word out of the necessity of its creation rather than the threat of its lack of use.
I'm male and preferred to be called he. If someone kept calling me she over and over again I'd be really irked. But being able to make them pay cash over it is absolutely absurd. I'd just think they're an asshole; that should be enough social consequence for someone calling you names.
I may have missed the point of your article though which perhaps isn't to say that Jordan Peterson is wrong and should rot in hell, but merely to say that there are holes in his logic that can be perceived dangerously. More of a don't blindly trust the smart man because he is called smart, article, where the target is Jordan's audience and not knocking Jordan himself down a few notches.
I digress. Thank you for writing this piece. I enjoyed reading what people find perturbing about Jordan Peterson. I am personally glad there are people that take the time to think things for themselves before blindly accepting a man of authority's word. I hope to continue this dialogue. Ciao.
Posted by: Shayne Clark | 01/21/2018 at 11:29 PM
Bill C-16 proposes to protect "gender identity" and "gender expression" under the Criminal Code of Canada. Any person accusing any other person of being inherently in the wrong because of his gender (such as initiating a frivolous class action rape charge against him, for example) or promoting the protection of one gender specifically to the exclusion of (and often overt or covert accusation of) another gender(s) would be committing a hate crime under the terms of the Canadian criminal code. Thus, anyone supporting women-only groups, movements to protect the rights of women (but not men), or harsher measures of investigation and penance against men than against women accused of the same crimes, would be breaking the law.
Now, I personally believe that any program, movement, legal action, blog post, etc that lauds one gender and accuses another gender (or genders) of being universally bad, wrong, or in any way universally anything is already unlawful and that to create an entirely new law explicitly making illegal something that is already unlawful is at best an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. But there's a more sinister possibility to Bill C-16, which is that it may backfire and be used by individuals or groups identifying as one gender to dismiss the rights of persons of another gender (or genders).
So is it okay for anyone to question anything about this Bill? Or can only people identified as one (or more) specific gender(s) have an opinion?
Also, how do we know that Peterson opposes this Bill? And what about it do we know that he actually opposes? Does he oppose wasting people's time and/or creating a bill that at best enforces a law that already exists (but at worst adds fuel to the already strong anti-male/anti-"patriarchy" movement that is leading to real pain and discrimination for thousands of Canadians?)? Or does he just think that fighting about pronouns is stupid and that there are more important things to put our attention on? And is it a hate crime to not want to do something that other people want you to do?
Lastly, shouldn't you speak of Peterson using neutral pronouns or might it, perhaps, make your article a pain to write and odious to read?
I get the point you're trying to make in this article, but you use too many non-sequiturs, straw-person arguments, and appeals to incredulity and emotionality to support that thesis, and, with many of your examples, actually present ideas that may better support an inverse or opposite position.
Posted by: Lishui | 01/25/2018 at 06:12 PM
What is typical of Peterson is, first, that he has a very dramatic approach and gesticulates rather wildly to make a point. That may not be "narcissistic", a term he applies freely, but it's interesting. Secondly, he uses his status as a bona fide psychologist to establish the credentials of his argument, often bypassing common logic as though he has a free pass. That seems a breach of ethics of a sort.
Thirdly, he resorts often to ad hominem attacks, again using his bona fides, as in his discussion at an alt right TV site, when he referred ominously to the strange behaviour, allegedly, of the interviewer, Cathy Newman. As well, he doesn't seem to understand that neologisms come from below, as spaces open up for them, not from dictionaries. Shakespeare apparently originated many. Not accepting them until they are included in dictionaries is authoritarian. Being narrow-minded is a hallmark of authoritarianism. He fits.
Posted by: Doris wrench Eisler | 02/01/2018 at 05:25 PM
"I think first of all, it's important to remember that I am focusing primarily on his arguments for why he doesn't use gender-neutral pronouns, not his views on Bill C-31. I believe I made this point at the beginning of my post. The worry Peterson presents about so-called "compelled speech" is about the Bill, which I didn't want to address in this post."
In his most recent interview with Cathy Newman, Peterson says outright that he would use the desired pronoun of a student in one of his classes, but the situation has never occurred. The real issue is compelled speech, which Peterson sees as the invasion of linguistic domain in order to harness power on behalf of radical leftists. Moreover, the instantiation of compelled speech laws does not necessarily mirror the collective consensus of the Canadian trans-community. In fact, many trans Canadians have opposed Bill C-16. The real issue Jordan Peterson foresaw was the misinterpretation of Bill C-16, which has already occurred at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario in regards to their recent despicable persecution of Lindsey Shepard. If you don't believe it, then just listen to the recording she made during her meeting with University admins. Unfortunately, Bill C-16 has already proved to be a means of quelling freedom of thought, and in that regard, Peterson was got it right.
Posted by: Otto | 02/12/2018 at 03:27 AM
Edit: Typos:
Your analogy about "creating words" and "making them up" being a normal process, referring to other crafts doing it as well, is a flawed comparison, as insofar that Peterson's rejection goes against legislating the use of one's own language, while your example just adds a new descriptor to the pool of available tools, free for people to decide to use, or not.
The main issue of the topic is that the identifier, by which any individual can be demanding the use of words with respect to their persona, is rather unlimited. Making a precedent of compelled speech based on the demand for respect opens up Pandoras box. There can be any number of rules that could be set in place to legislate on any number of criteria how an individual is deemed to be "respectfully treated". That is not just absurd for practicality (->"Oh, hi Susan, wait let me look up your pronoun, I think it was on page 4") but also absurd for defining boundaries.
Posted by: Dennis | 02/24/2018 at 05:09 PM
Dennis, you said: "Peterson's rejection goes against legislating the use of one's own language" The Bill C-16 does not legislate language, nor specifically "one's own language", the Bill C-16 legislate about discrimination while talking in public or to an audience.
Dennis you said: "The main issue of the topic is that the identifier, by which any individual can be demanding the use of words with respect to their persona, is rather unlimited", but unfortunately for Peterson the Bill C-16 does not legislates that "any non-binary individual can demand the use of specific words with respect to their persona" in fact it only establishes that "Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination ...". If someone demands to not be refered in public as he/she it would be polite and also required to do so by the bill C-16 if you don´t want to face discrimination charges, but does not establishes how, that is mainly up to the public speaker. That is why Freedom of speech is also one of the fallacies used by Peterson. Anyone has freedom of speech while talking in private, but if you talk in public to an audience and you purposedly disrespect a part of the audience is only reasonable that this part of the audience will denounce this lack of respect. Being a teacher is a position of privilege and authority and embracing ideologies, religions or bias should not be the driven force behind Public Universities lectures, that's why Private Universities are for.
Posted by: Gus | 04/06/2018 at 10:53 AM
Bill C-31 is related to Canadian Immigration, and has nothing to do with gender identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Canada%27s_Immigration_System_Act
JP has a very naive interpretation of Bill C-16 relating to the criminalization of incorrect pronoun use. It merely adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights act. This has the same effect in essence as enshrining gay/lesbian rights on the same human rights principles, aiming to protect against discrimination and hate crime.
Using incorrect pronouns is perhaps rude or possibly in bad taste. Perhaps if derogatory slurs are used, a case could be made for hate speech, but it would most likely have to be in fairly aggravated circumstance for a court to give it consideration. Again, think of this in terms of gay rights to see that in essence, you are merely granting folk with non-traditional gender expression/identity the same courtesy.
Posted by: Wynand | 07/17/2018 at 12:08 AM
I was looking for some content against Peterson as I don't agree with him on many points. However, this article is less insightful than the comments section itself. I feel like I wasted my time reading the article...
Long story short, I agree with the below:
"I get the point you're trying to make in this article, but you use too many non-sequiturs, straw-person arguments, and appeals to incredulity and emotionality to support that thesis, and, with many of your examples, actually present ideas that may better support an inverse or opposite position."
Posted by: John | 01/08/2019 at 06:56 PM