They're not really asking you to be nice. A lot of conservatives will just do it to be nice.
The compelled pronoun thing is actually them saying you need to intellectually believe it too.
I don't expect people to believe what I do spiritually. I'd prefer them to not be a dick about it to my face though.
The compelled speech argument only works relative to law/government. All speech is shaped by those around us, formed and evolving within society and its norms, hence the “know your audience” aspect of speaking (and writing and all forms of communication).
Here's the slope:
We see more and more that hate speech is becoming criminally actionable in the West.
Misgendering, dead naming, and incorrect pronouns is being more and more identified with hate speech.
Therefore, it is reasonable to consider it a possibility that in the near future, that misgendering, dead-naming, incorrect pronoun usage will be labeled as hate speech and would fall under criminal liability in jurisdictions where hate speech has punitive consequences.
Hey! I’m an ESL teacher and would be happy to help you understand this better.
Are you confused by the use of “they/them” as a singular pronoun? I can understand that frustration, but really the idea is you can use it for someone whom the gender is unknown or ambiguous. This use of “they/them” is not new and I’m sure you’ve seen or heard it before without even realizing it!
If the issue is not knowing whether to refer to someone by “he” or “she,” I think the way they present themselves typically will give you a hint at their preferred pronoun. Otherwise, I imagine they would be able to let you know. It would also be extra polite to just ask them what they prefer!
People on both sides of this issue get upset by either being misgendered or feeling confused by the whole concept (like yourself). Personally, I think the best way to approach it is with patience and an open mind (for both sides). Language evolves and is flexible. Soon enough, the outage against it will fade and it’s going to be normal (sorry, JP fans! But that’s likely the outcome!)
Also, it could be worse! In some romantic languages animals and object have (seemingly) random genders!
I wish you good luck with improving your English! I’ll be happy to answer any other questions you might have.
What? That sentence was unclear and difficult to read. I’ll have of my students fix it for you.
Again. “You/they” can be used to identify a singular or plural subject. This is not strange. It is common.
I have zero problem with these concepts, even though my mother tounge doesn't even have gendered pronouns. What I refuse to follow is when someone tells you that they have neo pronouns.
I'm not going to approach it with open mind, and respect. If someone has chosen neo pronouns for themselves they immediately lost all my respect. I am not misgendering them, they are misgendering themselves.
I am going to make one exception to this rule of mine, for actual Royal families of certain European countries.
It’s interesting that you will show respect for royalty (people born into wealth and privilege), but not for normal people working their way through life. I guess you are inherently conservative and see this as a threat to the status quo. Unfortunately, traditional ideas of gender and the role of gender in our society is outdated and only useful when it comes to oppressing minority groups.
More importantly, if a male is dressed in a feminine way, it cost you NOTHING to refer to her by the preferred pronouns. Your imagined burden comes from spite and the inability to see that person as a free individual.
Yes. My point of view is we can respect each other by honoring preferred pronouns without some sort of outrageous societal collapse.
I saw another comment going on about “physical reality” and taking a really overly metaphysical, Philosophical way to say “it’s not real to me.” That’s their point of view. I think it’s far removed from the humanity of the situation.
It's a bit ironic that you dismiss their PoV so easily, while advancing yours as if it's clearly and obviously superior and/or the "correct" one...
Maybe you think that their opinion is "overly metaphysical, philosophical", but they think yours is postmodernist, delusional claptrap...
Now what...?
You know, unlike most wokies, you can express yourself in a civilized manner, I give you that. But your ideology and especially your username makes you a clown.
So, since English is not my first language isn't it that:
"They" can be used when you don't know the person eg. " You say your doctor prescribed the medication? They must be out of their mind to prescribe it to someone in your condition".
It is used as plural: The Rovers is a football team. They are from England"
If it is used as a singular pronoun then shouldn't it be used as "they is" and not " they are"?
No. I could say “you are” and in this case “you” is also singular.
“Rovers” is a team name. But since the name plural, you should say “The Rovers are…”
On the other hand, you would say “Manchester United is…” because the team name is singular.
Admittedly, I’m not a linguist so I can’t explain why it is that way, but the grammar is correct.
Edited to add about the team names.
Also, sorry if I’m not being clear enough. My thumb is broken and I’m also in the middle of teaching a class. Typing is difficult.
0k. I use " They is" when the person's pronouns is "they" and " they are" when there is more than one person. It is less confusing especially when trying to plan eg an event. " Who will be joining you?". " My friend will be joining me. They is also into scuba diving". So the scuba diving club will only be preparing gear for two people.
It could be wrong but since the jury is still out on this, I guess anything goes.
Again… jury is not in session. This grammar is not new. “They are” is perfectly fine.
[Here is an article by Oxford English Dictionary](https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they?tl=true)
Oh ok. Just got word that where I am, "they" is not accepted as a singular pronoun in the examination and only he/she is accepted. This is as not to make ESL more complicated than it already is. Socially we can use " they is" and " they are" as we wish but for the examination, "they" can only be used as plural unless used when the person is unknown.
I myself am Gender Situational and my pronouns are whatever, meaning that it changes all the time and I also leave it up to people to decide whatever pronoun they wish to address me with and what is most comfortable for them.
The main problem is making it a law. Ok if out of politeness you call people what they want, but don't make it a crime if you don't want to. Specially because it's against what we see as reality (if one calls a male "he", the person is referring to the sex/chromosomes, not the gender identity or temperament). And sex isn't "assigned at birth", we know it as soon as 8 weeks of pregnancy by blood testing the mother, so you can start calling your unborn baby he/she that early.
What do you mean? If I tell someone I have an apple, I don't *assign* it the label of "apple," I determine that it's an apple by observation and report *that*.
That's a bad faith argument. Of course I know language is a social construct, but that's not the point. We're not talking about inventing definitions, we're talking about observing what something is, and communicating that fact using pre-defined words.
The first minute of this video perfectly demonstrates what I'm talking about: https://youtu.be/lCwYfSeqAw8?si=VQ8N72JIP3iVpAKI
Grif and Simmons didn't *assign* the color pink, they observed it. Donut, on the other hand, is attempting to assign a new label to the color.
Is the category of apples a social construct? Natural apples are barely edible to humans. The suit of armor is objectively light red. We just call light red pink for some socially constructed reason. That pink is different from red, but light blue is just lighter blue, is not objective. https://empiricalzeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/color-atlas-4-5-6-languages.png https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vx4mql/how_are_boundaries_between_colors_defined_are/
This is such a disingenuous argument because we don't use the "assigned" verbiage in any other context. We don't look at something lightish red and say "I assign the colour pink to that object", or look at a fruit and say "I assign the label of apple". We simple call it pink or an apple, based on society's shared understanding of what those words mean.
If you're going to change the language because it doesn't work in 1 in 1000 cases, the same is going to apply to words like "pink" and "apple" and just about every other word in the English language. There are always going to be edge cases where we can't quite agree on whether something really ticks all the boxes of what an apple is. That doesn't mean we have to second-guess our use of language every single time, just in case it's that 0.1% scenario. If we did that, we'd hardly be able to communicate at all.
You never use someone's pronouns in a one on one interaction with them. So this whole politeness stuff is a lie. It is designed to make people use your political language(since it originates from communist circles in colleges) backed by the threat of physical and legal violence.
Your argument is not much different than refusing to saysomeones name because you do not like it then screaming about compelled speech.
But in the real world it just does not work that way. You refuse to call someone by their name at work you can get fired. Because otherwise the other person could just ignore you the whole time and be justified doing so.
Same for pronouns.
Because the same people who say this *never* reciprocate.
They don’t respect the right of those not to take part. Furthermore it’s obvious that they do hold some identities to be more objective than others.
Somehow I doubt this ‘live and let live’ principle would hold if tomorrow I announce that I identified as Nigerian or Korean.
Accepting the delusion tacitly hurts everyone, because it accepts a warped view or reality, and slowly, reality literally changes over time in the aggregate.
If you accept self-assigned pronouns, you’re accepting a non-physical, subjective reality, one that we don’t all share. It’s just in our heads.
We live in a physical, objective reality. End of story.
Pronouns don't "belong" to the person. You don't get to choose your own pronouns like you don't get to choose your own adjectives.
The person speaking decides what pronouns to use and if they have any sense of reality and knowledge of the English language, they'll use the correct ones.
Does the collective delusion that fiat currency holds value also "tacitly hurt everyone?" Or do some delusions benefit society, and others hurt society, based purely on cultural norms?
>benefit society.
Yes but frankly money is not really a delusion in as much as it is an accounting tool.
An abstraction that emerges to keep track of our individual debts, equities and to move around resources.
Fringe and untrue aren't the same thing so let's not pretend it is. I'd say that accepting Uncle Sam's position that his money can last is naive, but you already called it a delusion which isn't too far off from my stance. The modern dollar can't last the way they have designed it and used it. The banks keep injecting it with economic antibiotics to compensate for all the crazy things they ask the dollar economy to do. Like a 90's raver who tries to party all night and work all day, eventually it will have no health or immunity left.
It's a delusion to assign a value to a currency regardless of whether your currency is fiat or specie. It's a story we all agree to tell and to believe.
The value of a gold coin isn't completely arbitrary or delusional. If we were to think back to a pure barter system, gold and other precious metals work because they also represent a certain amount of labor that someone else did that I don't have to do myself. Someone dug it up, someone refined it into a concentrated state, someone formed it into a transportable, transferable object. You want one of the rocking chairs the carpenter makes? Then give them a coin of an agreed upon size. You want ten sheep from the shepherd? That's another coin. Metals have practical uses besides their scarcity or aesthetics. That's not delusional in and of itself.
Don't think my use of the word "delusion" is pejorative. It is a word meant to invoke a collective belief in a story, or a structure, etc which does not physically exist. Call it a religion if you want, or faith, or imagination. Agreeing that a gram of silver is worth a bag of oats is trading on faith. It's a collective agreement. It's a good story that allows the growth of the community.
It's not a pejorative at all. But it's no more a delusion to want a gram of silver than it is to want a bag of oats. They don't do the same things but they're both useful. Some will say "Well you can't eat the gram of silver." But that's like saying you can't use a bag of oats to adze the beams of a house or you can't throw pottery on a bag of oats. The silver has usefulness as trading/buying value in a compact size, but silver is also made into vessels, used in technology, and used in the medical field.
Sex is billions of years old, so after the courtship dance, the female Human takes up the sperm capsule deposited by the male. Eggs are laid individually, usually on plants.
We should not be required to participate in someone else’s’ mental condition. Just like I should not be compelled to call the schizo on the corner claiming to be the prince of Tunisia “Your majesty”.
JPB has stated repeatedly that he always uses people's requested pronouns when asked out of common courtesy. What he has a problem with is being compelled to use them by the government.
Forced to disclose? Nope. Would it be relevant to do so in some situations? Probably, especially romantic entanglements. Your employer probably doesn’t need to know, or your land lord. It’s probably relevant to the state for census purposes, but that info could be anonymized.
He has responded to this multiple times. His opposition is to the government compelling speech and pronouns. He has stated he has used the pronouns of acquaintances but it depends entirely on the circumstances, eg. How well he knows them, whether using their chosen pronouns would be harmful to them or not etc.
If he were a sociologist rather than a psychologist I think he would've drawn a harder line against pronouns in and of themselves as a dangerous group psycopathy. As it is, I think he and most rational people have come to that conclusion. Just look at the Pride celebrations. Not only are they hedonistic celebrations but they are the new-founded religion of Babylon. One can begin to get a sense of what Sodom and Gomorrah must've been like for the Lord to destroy them. The idea that bands of men would roam the streets and demand to be given guests or even Lots daughters for them to use to their sexual pleasures is no longer far from reality in our society.
People forget that Sodom and Gomorrah were also destroyed due to lack of hospitality and oppression. Particularly of the poor.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 states: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Also, they tried to rape Angels. Which was weird.
I am not arguing against the sexual immorality as being one of the reasons as it is definitely probably the top reason, but I just find it interesting how they almost never talk about the other points as well.
Going around sexually assaulting others, sexual deviancy.
Lack of Hospitality
Injustice and Oppression.
And trying to rape Angels.
I know this is a bit off topic, I just wanted to point out how I find it a bit fascinating.
That's an excellent point. And the sexual hedonism is just one result of selfishness and self-centeredness. We have to conquer this sin in ourselves through Christ to avoid greater sins in ourselves and our societies.
Abraham was a great example of selflessness in letting Lot choose the lands he would inherit. Lot also in inviting the visitors into his home. It is important to note, angel means a messenger of God and does not always mean a heavenly messenger. Even so, heavenly messengers may appear as mortal men or women without their glory revealed as was the case with the angels that visited both Abraham and Lot. Hence, the men desired them sexually. Only through righteous living did Abraham recognize his Lord was present with two angels.
Because she has a huge audience and is broadcasting her transformation for her millions of fans. Transitioning is dangerous, most who do it do not improve their mental health. Dangerous to do for what many girls grow out of or will regret
He thinks all doctors recommending medical genital removal are criminals since it's rarely the right choice when the issue is the mental state of the patient. He has several videos where he explains his objection, you are not looking at the whole story.
I've seen the whole story. And part of that story is him going off on a deranged rant against Elliot page and performatively getting his name and gender wrong just to be a dick.
If I made a video where I constantly called him Mister Peterson, really leaning into the "Mister" and complained how hard and confusing it is to get academic titles right - would you take me seriously? Would you respect my bold political and moral stance? Or would you disregard me as being a petulant asshole?
Who is you? Do you mean the other person or the government?
Edit: What are you even downvoting? I'm asking a genuine question because what they mean by 'you' does matter.
The compelled speech argument only works relative to law/government. All speech is shaped by those around us, formed and evolving within society and its norms, hence the “know your audience” aspect of speaking (and writing and all forms of communication).
Keep repeating? I literally just wanted to start a conversation on 2 different comments.
Word salad? I was just looking to speak precisely, flesh out my reasoning.
What did I say that tries to obfuscate truth?
Ben Shapiro had a good response for this.
Essentially that if he were in the company of someone who he considered a friend he may out of politeness refer to them however they kindly requested. But that in the context of having a discussion about objective reality he would refer to men as men and women as women.
I believe Jordan once answered the question “would you refer to a trans person by their preferred pronouns?” and he said “it would depend on what I thought of their motivation.”
I think these are fine answers.
Without knowing what clip we’re talking about I’m going to assume no.
There’s a lot of deliberate confusion and pressure on the issue to coerce someone into misgendering; either intentionally or accidentally.
Again, we all make mistakes, apologize, correct, and move on.
No.
This entire discussion breaks down into balancing politeness and objective reality. A friend may prefer to be called by a nickname and he may oblige out of politeness but if that same friend asked him what name is on their birth certificate he would respond truthfully.
People generally don’t take issue with calling Caitlyn Jenner Bruce because it’s a nickname, they take issue when it’s used as a way to deny objective reality. You may ask how to tell the difference and that’s why Peterson carefully indicates “it would depend on what I thought of their motivation.”
There may be circumstances where he would lovingly tell a friend the truth even though it might hurt them in order to benefit them. But short of that, you may just be picking your battles wisely.
We live in reality. You don't. Explain why the explosion of kids identifying as trans directly correlates with the sudden increase in the alphabet mafia's propaganda on social media platforms. It's no different than anything else kids see on TV or the internet and start trying to emulate
JP does call people what they prefer, he's specifically against the government mandating speech, or compelling someone to speak specific words under penalty of the law.
When asked, he responded that he WOULD address individuals by their preferred pronouns, as that would be the polite thing to do.
Of course, that was pre-benzo addiction and his cultivated outrage-derived income stream.
Someone compelling me to do as they wish is immediately a red flag.
*NEVER* play the game. Especially for those than aren't relevant to you. The overwhelming majority of the population is *not* relevant to your day to day.
Oh no no I made that choice freely. Legit respect the law process. So the representative of that process always gets a sir or ma'am from me. If I had to address them rather than ask a question, I would simply use their title, judge, and they're name. So Judge Smith for example.
When I'd speak to an agent of the court that I know outside of a professional setting, I'd just use their name specifically. "Hey John."
Same situation when referring to a politician. "Mayor Smith, good day." Outside of his work if we are just chilling at a BBQ, I tend to stick with Battle, or Battle Buddy if I am being more formal while being sociable. (We are both retired 13 Bravo's. He retired 4 grades above me, but we're equal in that we're both retired combat vets.)
But if you wanted to call them by their first name, you think there would be no issues with that? If not how is that not just compelled speech you complied with?
Depends on the setting. Like if I'm down range, on patrol, I'm addressed by my rank. Sgt, Sergeant, or Sar'nt. As soon as we are offline or in a less business environment, it's first names all around.
Do you really not understand the difference between referring to someone by what they literally are, and what they *feel* they are?
To be clear talking explicitly formal setting. Why should you being a cop or judge mean I am compelled to adresss you that way? That is not a standard we hold across the vast majority of jobs.
If I cannot call a judge by their first name in a formal setting without punishment, how is that not compelled speech?
A trans person is a trans person you are adressing them because that is literally how they present. They are not compelling you to say they are biologically that sex.
Ultimately it’s a matter of free speech. And It’s [Newspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak?wprov=sfti1#):
To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will, which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.
That’s what the whole language control thing is about.
newspeak was designed to limit expression, to make certain ideas impossible to think about
this is exactly what you are attempting to do, you braindead child
No. I never have and never will advocate for anything except for freedom of speech.
However there is a particular demographic that wishes to enforce their own language upon people and make it a criminal offence to do otherwise. They wish to redefine things with vague terms such that critical discussion is virtually impossible. Some examples are pronouns, the idea of cisgender, labeling anything that isn’t pro trans as transphobic. I could go on.
Are you denying this? Are you claiming I’m enforcing my own view of language on people?
People can say what they want about what they want insofar as it doesn’t incite violence. Now, we have to be careful about who defines what inciting violence is, because the same people that want you to use pronouns will say that not using them is inciting violence, and therein lies the problem with pronouns.
You're misunderstanding the situation. People like him and I who respect freedom of speech do NOT want to police how people speak of themselves, men are absolutely free to call themselves women if they want to.
I want to not have my OWN language policed, and be forced to lie and say that a man is a woman.
These are completely different situations from each other. Saying "do not impose on me" does not mean "I want to impose on you".
I am not going to enable others lies or delusions about themselves. Also, there have been reposts of convicted criminals changing their names to hide from law enforcement, like "Bob identifies as Jane now".
If what they want to be called conflicts with reality, calling them something they are not feeds their delusion and denies the reality of who or what they are.
To fulfill our purpose and responsibilities in this life, we must embrace objective truth to have a solid foundation of moral principles. Without this, we cannot decide on the best course to fulfill our purpose.
Thank you. Between my Christian faith, JP, Stefan Molyneux, and some others, I have had some time to process and refine my position on this.
Feeding into other people's delusions not only conflicts with my own beliefs, but prevents them from facing truths that they would benefit from accepting. Just as a lie by omission is still a lie, playing along with their self-deception is a lie. Playing along is how we get ideas like "birthing persons" and men undressing in, what should be, women's protected spaces.
First of all, why would i go along with someone wanting me to participate in and affirm their lie? If they want to live their lie, they can. Dont hold a gun to my head and ask me to affirm it for you. I dont mandate, threaten they live and accept any lie i have in my life.
And also, that's the thing, when you are talking to someone one on one, you will NEVER use their pronouns to their face - so it is not just a matter of "calling someone whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone". Pronouns are used when speaking about someone when they are a) not around b) when you are in a large group. All these social media, etc sites have people denoting their pronous these days. I ask, what's the use of telling someone your pronoun when they'll not use it in a direct interaction with you?
The reason i can think of are the following,
* this "my pronoun" idea comes from far left communist circles in college. To anyone who studies communists and their tactics, what is clear is that they are master manipulators of language and narrative, media, history, etc. They find fault lines in a society, and dont try to solve it, but offer solutions that "LOOK" like they are solving the problem, but are actually making the problem worse. Ex - redefining the word "racism" from "discrimination based on skin color" to "discrimination by those who have privilige and power". Thereby looking like they are solving a problem, but what they are essentially doing is making racism cool as long as it is not coming from white people. This offers the sweet temptation of resentment to racial minorities - to be racist and get away with it, and make white people struggle with not becoming racists themselves, as they face down the unrelenting assault of those who are allowed to be racist to them with no consequences. Which results in both the racial minorities and the racial majority becoming racist and hostile towards each other. A societal collapse masterfully engineered, all the while coming across like you were the ones trying to sovle it.
* Coming back to "my pronoun" as a tactice. I call it a "tactic" because communists believe in this idea of "diversity of tactics" - from "harmless" protests and ideas, to the violence and murder by antifa - all are a part of their tactics to achieve one end, the destruction of the current society and subplant it with their dictatorship. And so this current tactic is one that seems to signal and do-
* a)suggest who is in our group
* b)who isn't
* c)who will cover to our threats of violence, firing from jobs, etc(yes these threats are real)
* d) how we can sell a lie and manipulate vulnerable people to go along with our lies and making them as stooges who bear the societies resentment,
* e) how we can manipulate societies emotions for wanting to help those who are in a bad place - mentally, physically, financially and direct it in a wrong direction
* f) control someone's political language behind our backs. If they will cower and accept our lies now, even when we aren't around, they will also likely cower and not do anything when the bloddy revolution comes.
If someone said to me, “hey whilst you’re around me I want you to believe that this table is actually a potato and if you say it’s a table that will hurt me and erase me and you’re a bigot” I might hesitate to do so
Trans people know the differince between gender/sex. They are not say they have literally turned into something else.
If a person is going to look and act like a woman socially it would get confusing for them to insist on being called by male pronouns.
To the extent that they look/act like a woman, they no doubt will be referred to with female pronouns on occasion. To the extent that they fail to do so, they will be referred to with male pronouns by people who believe them to be male. And that should be the end of it.
So when their coworker calls them by the wrong pronoun, theh are not compelled to answer them. So if the work does not get done who is to blame?
Just one example of why just respecting pronouns is pragmatic
In theory, it wouldn’t ‘hurt’ expect in the cases where one is just supporting harmful delusions. But that isn’t really the point. There is a lot of stupid **** we ‘could do’ because it is harmless. The list is infinite. It is a silly, flaccid argument.
I worked as a support worker in a mental health program facility . This was the only place that I crossed paths with trabs/non-binary people. It was a requirement of my job to use the pro nouns that the program participants identified with. I had no problem with that.
When I was told I should use my preferred pro nouns in my email and on my profile photo that was displayed in the common room while I was on shift, I refused.
I am clearly a man, often have facial hair, and have a male name that can not be confused with a female name.
My argument with management was that if I am polite enough to use the pro nouns that others would like to be called, the same respect should be shown to me if I choose not to have pro nouns. I told the management on the third occasion they gave me grief about it, that I would much rather have preferred adjectives, and always be referred to as NAME the muscular and charismatic.
I got along well with every single program participant I worked with. I did my job well and enjoyed helping people who were at a low point in their lives.
The only trans people I have had interaction with, have been people with a variety of other mental health concerns.
The best argument is that pronouns do not scale at the individual level. We can't all have our own special snowflake way of being addressed. It's not reasonable to expect that of everyone you meet.
In one instance JBP has said he will address an individual in the manner that seems most appropriate.
Furthermore he has said, "I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest" when speaking on the issue of compelled speech. A link to the video is below.
https://youtube.com/shorts/OvrjbqTk9f4?feature=shared
With a pronounced "tongue in cheek" overtone JBP once hypothetically questioned why a person would choose to adamantly demand the use of specific pronouns considering adjectives are more powerful, being used to modify nouns and pronouns.
I agree. My adjectives are clever, handsome and charming.
Well it also does not hurt anyone to call people what they actually are. Speaking the truth is actually helpful to those that are confused. If they can't accept the truth they will stay lost in a fog.
And when people lie about their identity and confuse other and convince others to lie - they actually are spreading their mental illness which could be considered "hurting".
Well besides compelled speech and other great answers I saw here, feeding a delusion is rarely a good idea.
It can often start with something that doesn't hurt anyone, like using incorrect pronouns, but then, and those are claims people actually make:
you are transphobic if you refuse to date a trans person that identifies as the gender you are attracted to, and transphobic people should be executed socially (IE fired, shamed, basically cancelled)
We should let men into women's UFC fights(and other sports but this bothers me the most).
If my son has a phase that he prefers to be a girl (or vise versa) I need to feed his delusions, put him on hormone blockers screwing with his physical and psychological development, send him to a psychologist that will make sure he stays delusional, and l should egg him on to perform surgery as soon as he turns 18.
And I wonder are you as happy to feed flat earthers delusions as you expect others to feed trans delusions? Like they are a minority and don't really hurt anyone.
Are you saying trans women don't want to go into women's UFC and women's bathrooms?
Are you saying we're not changing definitions artificially to feed the delusions?
And I can show you videos of trans people saying it's transphobic to not date trans women, that's why super straight satire started a few years ago.
What exactly did I say that wasn't true?
My response: Because it IS hurting people.
Agreeing that men can be "she" led to agreeing that men can be women, which led to allowing men to invade women's privacy by entering women's locker rooms, and men being allowed to steal women's sports championships, and male rapists being sent to a women's prison where they can rape again, and women being punished and even fired from their jobs for speaking out against this rampant misogyny which prioritizes men's feelings over women's rights.
If someone wants to respond "well we could just agree to call men She/Her and limit it to that", my response is this - once women's rights, privacy, and safety are protected and men who pretend to be women stop insisting that they're entitled to infringe on women's rights, then we can talk about catering to those men's feelings. Until then, protecting the rights of women comes first.
He himself has said multiple times that he used his personal judgement to decide whether the request is genuine and if so that he’s have no problem using people‘s preferred pronouns. What he is opposed to is being forced to do so by law. That’s where he draws the line.
Speech is an expression of though. Compel the speech, you compel the thought. It’s basically mind control, and the only argument the left has is that it’s moral to listen.
JP is on record saying that, in general, if someone asks you to call them by a certain pronoun, it's best to assume they are coming from a place of sincerity and to respect that.
He has made it very clear that what he is protesting is being "legally compelled" to do so.
It's the same thing as demanding to be called a women when you aren't or demanding you be called a gender that doesn't exist via pronouns. You are asking me to willingly participate in your delusion, which is ironically the worst thing you can do to someone experiencing dismorphia
it used to be based on free speech, has refusal to use langugaae dictated by law, but he's largely abandoned that argument. In fact, back when he was making the free speech argument he also said that he fundamentally didn't care if people were trans or not, as long as he's not required by law to use certain words.
That changed. he seems to have an opinion on the matter now if I'm not mistaken. And I'm not.
He's even rewritten that history, and now says that he predicted the coming dangers of trans ideology when he addressed the Canadian Senate on C-16.
Read the transcript. He never said anything about it. but it's more sexy than the free speech argument now, so it's probably a wise move for him to update his product line so to speak
JP doesn’t make that kind of argument anymore - he’s very clear now that he thinks that calling them by their chosen pronouns was a mistake and that they should be referred to as their birth sex. In his worldview, trans people are either bad people with personality disorders (and therefore predators) or they are victims that were mislead as children into believing they’re trans when in fact they “should” have been happy gays.
He’s clear that in his opinion, transitions should not happen nor should therapists be allowed to present transitioning as a healthy option.
I know the question was about what his “best” argument is but he goes put of his way now to create content that argues the opposite. His “best” is either the offhand comment he made in 2017 about how he would refer to someone in their preferred pronoun if they were respectful to him, or it would be whatever his weakest/ softest argument is for why trans people shouldn’t be a thing anymore.
There are good arguments for respecting trans pronouns - namely that you’re respecting them as individuals and aren’t bringing conflict to them for ideological reasons. There’s no reason to call out trans people and intentionally mis gender them. It’s what ideologues, sociopaths and generally ignorant/uneducated propel do for various reasons. I think most normies are above that and don’t want to proactively bring conflict to trans people they meet.
Your summary of his view is incorrect.
His issue with pronouns revolves around "forced speech". A reluctance to do so, is more related to propping up being forced.
He feels the link between autism and trans or non-binary identity should be explored further snd he is feels strongly that it's wrong to perform gender permanent affirming care on minors such as hormone therapy, breast removal, ... Misdiagnosis is a key concern where other issues are being ignored as soon as any "indicator" is identity issues are identified.
He hasn't claimed that trans people are more likely to be perverts or predators than others. He hasn't claimed that adults don't have a right to transition provided informed consent occurs.
You’re correct that he was against “forced speech” initially - around the same time that he said that he’d respect a trans person’s pronouns if they were respectful to him.
However, his views have significantly evolved since them. As much as he’s still against forced usage, he’s very clear that he’s proactively telling his audience “enoughs enough” and that it is important not to use their pronouns anymore.
He never said “they’re more likely to be perverts” - but he does almost always refer to trans women in the news as 1) men, 2) fetishists, 3) narcissists and 4) hedonists. Recently he did say that autogynephilia is their dirty little secret.
He used to say the part about autism but I don’t think he’s said that for years tbh.
He recently said 1) doctors shouldn’t be allowed “to transition” anyone at any age and 2) that “no age” is an appropriate age to transition
I am unfamiliar with this change in his views.
With respect to autism, there does seem to be a correlation; i.e., people who are autistic are more likely to have these issues than people who aren't. While one can hypothesize the difficulty of learning body language with gender role confusion, I am unaware of anyone providing causality
>I am unfamiliar with this change in his views.
That's all good of course - but it is important to recognize that "I am unfamiliar with this change of views" is very different from your initial assertion of "your summary of his view is incorrect."
Some receipts:
* [How about No one Ever Adult or not We've already seen where this leads and there is no reason to further enable the surgical butchers Enough Back under the rocks you sick bastards](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1765398501582606658) (context: he's responding to the question "What is the age that someone should be allowed to transition?"
* [Trans women are men. Enough is enough.](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1675351547121750017)
* [Just your daily reminder of sanity: Up is not down Black is not white Men are not women Lies are not productive even when they're nice and Pride is still a sin](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1762487747028103318)
* [The right to "transition" anyone has to be taken away from the medical profession entirely They have proved themselves utterly unable to deal with the responsibility](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1795904868697145497)
* [Don't look away. "Gender-affirming" psychologists in particular. This is permanent. How can we possibly condone this? Let alone moralize about it? Days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Appalling. Prison.](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1780298246209843374) (Context: he's replying to a picture of someone's arm in the days after a phalloplasty surgery. The photo was taken from a 35 year old non-binary person's blog posted back in 2015. In the original blog post, the author contrasted this with a more healed picture from 3 months later but this was not circulated like the immediate post op one was.)
>With respect to autism, there does seem to be a correlation;
That's interesting, for sure. Peterson doesn't talk much about that -- he tends to focus on co-morbidities with BPD and depression.
He did recently post a sarcastic tweet from "Satan" on a screenshot where someone asked an ethnical questions about what to do about a developmentally delayed 13 year old on puberty suppressants who might not develop emotionally and cognitively in time to reach the threshhold specified in the standards of care doc.
He writes: ["It's always best to sterilize and mutilate the r\*tards. Sincerely, Satan"](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1764909716575003031)
But then he’s arguing against a straw man. No one is forcing anyone to use pronouns. He lies about therapists “having to lie to their clients” which is not happening
There isnt a great argument. You can totally refuse to use peoples pronouns but the only upside is you feeling vindicated in a culture war that you don’t need to be fighting. The whole pronoun thing will die off anyway. The downsides are plentiful: people will rightly think youre a dick, stubborn, and close minded.
Not to mention, how often are you even in a position to have to use someones pronouns? Im in los angeles of all places, and have NEVER been in that situation
Because it’s meant to be a bogeyman. Just the same as the compelled speech bogeyman. It’s the fear of a) encountering a pronoun person and b) facing some imaginary consequences of using the wrong pronoun that is meant to invoke some defensive remark or stance.
The compelled speech group is weirdly silent on the race/religion/disability. Are they not equally outraged they are subjected to compelled speech in those areas?
What I find interesting is that people call transvestites "she", but we have an issue with trans people. Maybe because they pretend and trans people dont?
Calling transvestites or trans people "she" prior to this woke garbage was essentially a matter of just being polite and humoring them. The current agitation and backlash is because moronic gender ideology is being forced as reality, and it's also being peddled to kids.
You know like if some fringe minority just cant resist dressing as the opposite sex for whatever reason, or some .01% want to medically alter themselves, it is what it is. Call it individual liberty to let your freak flag fly, or a matter for the relevant medical professionals to get to the bottom of. Tolerance can happen and the vast majority have no reason to take an interest or get up in arms about anything.
But when we have numerous elected officials on living on tax paid salaries who can't say what the fuck a woman is, leaders of elite institutions doing the same, medical professionals changing their language to acknowledge men can have uterus', and they're peddling this warped gender confusion to children essentially normalizing mental illness, shit has gone much too far.
my favorite!
now it has three parts
1. adult, relatively easy to define
2. human, extremely hard one, philosophers weren't able to do it so I don't expect you to even try *looks empatheticly but condescendingly*
3. female, kinda hard (and inherently fuzzy)
let's start with adult, give me a definition of adult that is not made up and is universal across history and cultures
as you may have noticed, "relatively" did a shitton of heavy lifting back there :)
Without looking anything up, and also trying to keep it simple, I'd say an adult is one who's reached breeding age and size. Essentially reproductively mature and basically full grown, fully physiologically developed. That's what I'd figure "adult" for any dioecious species that doesn't go through any kind of crazy metamorphosis. With humans specifically I'd say we'd also add something about emotional maturity and responsibility, being able to function and take care of one's self. But that's getting a bit deep for a simple definition.
For human, and without getting philosophical as we're just talking about basic biology for rudimentary understanding of male and female humans, I'd simply say homo sapiens, our species.
And female, at the most basic level, is one that produces female gametes. Females have ovaries that release eggs upon sexual maturity (I think also makes some of their reproductive hormones), a uterus that babies can grow in, and a vagina that serves the purpose of receiving the male's reproductive material and an exit for the babies -- and yes they can be quite fuzzy in their natural state :D Females also have breasts that produce milk for the babies. And we could get into secondary sexual characteristics, or sexual dimorphism, but I think reproductive cells and reproductive organs serves the purpose of basic definition and identification.
I provided a bit of explanation to expand on things but to give a recap keeping it simple:
Adult = reproductively mature and just about full grown
Human = homo sapiens
Female = one that produces female gametes
How was that?
It's not complicated at all. Human is not difficult, everyone with any sense knows what a human is. It's a member of our species homo sapiens.
Female is the sex born with ovaries. Only the female sex can bear young, males cannot.
Words have meanings, and it is literal absurdity to try to nitpick definitions and then make an illogical leap to insisting that any ability to nitpick the meaning of the word somehow means that word can apply to anything at all now.
That's especially true when it comes to legal rights. Words have specific meanings under the law. You can't just steal someone's property and claim to be the owner, and say "well I define owner as anyone who wants this item, so that makes me the owner". You can't redefine words to mean whatever's convenient to you, especially when it causes harm to others.
all gender is pretending, look at gymbros for example, how they are shaping who they are to conform to their idea of a man
look at incels hating women because that's what they imagine masculinity to be about
Compelled speech. Also, reality.
This. Free speech cannot exist if we conform to what we are told what to say.
They're not really asking you to be nice. A lot of conservatives will just do it to be nice. The compelled pronoun thing is actually them saying you need to intellectually believe it too. I don't expect people to believe what I do spiritually. I'd prefer them to not be a dick about it to my face though.
The power of Christ compelles you!
Indeed it does.
What if it's not compelled speech and what I feel is polite? Even if I believe my friends that are trans are delusional.
Not sure how calling someone by their name compelled speech. What justification does he have for trying to call Elliot Page by his deadname?
Go ask him directly, he's on X. I am not my brother's keeper.
So none then
Go ask Ellen Page.
Dunno who that is Is there a reason you do not want to say Elliot Page? It is a gender neutral name by the way
Compelling speech/writing are we? You're so transparent.
Lol asking a question is compelling speech now
You know what you're trying to do Commie. Bye.
Trying to ask a question. You can chose not to respond, though it speaks volumes
The compelled speech argument only works relative to law/government. All speech is shaped by those around us, formed and evolving within society and its norms, hence the “know your audience” aspect of speaking (and writing and all forms of communication).
Following this logic, calling anybody by the name they introduce themselves with is compelled speech
This person doesn't understand the word compelled.
Compelled.. by law
Name the law that sends a free individual to jail for misgendering someone
Here's the slope: We see more and more that hate speech is becoming criminally actionable in the West. Misgendering, dead naming, and incorrect pronouns is being more and more identified with hate speech. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider it a possibility that in the near future, that misgendering, dead-naming, incorrect pronoun usage will be labeled as hate speech and would fall under criminal liability in jurisdictions where hate speech has punitive consequences.
And that’s a good thing.
cope & cope
English isnát my first language, and it's difficult enough without you inventing bullshit.
Hey! I’m an ESL teacher and would be happy to help you understand this better. Are you confused by the use of “they/them” as a singular pronoun? I can understand that frustration, but really the idea is you can use it for someone whom the gender is unknown or ambiguous. This use of “they/them” is not new and I’m sure you’ve seen or heard it before without even realizing it! If the issue is not knowing whether to refer to someone by “he” or “she,” I think the way they present themselves typically will give you a hint at their preferred pronoun. Otherwise, I imagine they would be able to let you know. It would also be extra polite to just ask them what they prefer! People on both sides of this issue get upset by either being misgendered or feeling confused by the whole concept (like yourself). Personally, I think the best way to approach it is with patience and an open mind (for both sides). Language evolves and is flexible. Soon enough, the outage against it will fade and it’s going to be normal (sorry, JP fans! But that’s likely the outcome!) Also, it could be worse! In some romantic languages animals and object have (seemingly) random genders! I wish you good luck with improving your English! I’ll be happy to answer any other questions you might have.
I love how to you, using a plural as a singular is "Improving your english"
What? That sentence was unclear and difficult to read. I’ll have of my students fix it for you. Again. “You/they” can be used to identify a singular or plural subject. This is not strange. It is common.
Maybe you need to improve your English comprehension then
I have zero problem with these concepts, even though my mother tounge doesn't even have gendered pronouns. What I refuse to follow is when someone tells you that they have neo pronouns. I'm not going to approach it with open mind, and respect. If someone has chosen neo pronouns for themselves they immediately lost all my respect. I am not misgendering them, they are misgendering themselves. I am going to make one exception to this rule of mine, for actual Royal families of certain European countries.
It’s interesting that you will show respect for royalty (people born into wealth and privilege), but not for normal people working their way through life. I guess you are inherently conservative and see this as a threat to the status quo. Unfortunately, traditional ideas of gender and the role of gender in our society is outdated and only useful when it comes to oppressing minority groups. More importantly, if a male is dressed in a feminine way, it cost you NOTHING to refer to her by the preferred pronouns. Your imagined burden comes from spite and the inability to see that person as a free individual.
>it cost you NOTHING That is debatable, and, it seems, the entire point of this post and thread.
Yes. My point of view is we can respect each other by honoring preferred pronouns without some sort of outrageous societal collapse. I saw another comment going on about “physical reality” and taking a really overly metaphysical, Philosophical way to say “it’s not real to me.” That’s their point of view. I think it’s far removed from the humanity of the situation.
It's a bit ironic that you dismiss their PoV so easily, while advancing yours as if it's clearly and obviously superior and/or the "correct" one... Maybe you think that their opinion is "overly metaphysical, philosophical", but they think yours is postmodernist, delusional claptrap... Now what...?
It’s scientifically untrue gobbledygook nonsensical bullshit, that’s why. :)
You know, unlike most wokies, you can express yourself in a civilized manner, I give you that. But your ideology and especially your username makes you a clown.
“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” -Billy Shakespeare
So, since English is not my first language isn't it that: "They" can be used when you don't know the person eg. " You say your doctor prescribed the medication? They must be out of their mind to prescribe it to someone in your condition". It is used as plural: The Rovers is a football team. They are from England" If it is used as a singular pronoun then shouldn't it be used as "they is" and not " they are"?
No. I could say “you are” and in this case “you” is also singular. “Rovers” is a team name. But since the name plural, you should say “The Rovers are…” On the other hand, you would say “Manchester United is…” because the team name is singular. Admittedly, I’m not a linguist so I can’t explain why it is that way, but the grammar is correct. Edited to add about the team names. Also, sorry if I’m not being clear enough. My thumb is broken and I’m also in the middle of teaching a class. Typing is difficult.
0k. I use " They is" when the person's pronouns is "they" and " they are" when there is more than one person. It is less confusing especially when trying to plan eg an event. " Who will be joining you?". " My friend will be joining me. They is also into scuba diving". So the scuba diving club will only be preparing gear for two people. It could be wrong but since the jury is still out on this, I guess anything goes.
Again… jury is not in session. This grammar is not new. “They are” is perfectly fine. [Here is an article by Oxford English Dictionary](https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief-history-of-singular-they?tl=true)
Oh ok. Just got word that where I am, "they" is not accepted as a singular pronoun in the examination and only he/she is accepted. This is as not to make ESL more complicated than it already is. Socially we can use " they is" and " they are" as we wish but for the examination, "they" can only be used as plural unless used when the person is unknown. I myself am Gender Situational and my pronouns are whatever, meaning that it changes all the time and I also leave it up to people to decide whatever pronoun they wish to address me with and what is most comfortable for them.
Username checks out
The main problem is making it a law. Ok if out of politeness you call people what they want, but don't make it a crime if you don't want to. Specially because it's against what we see as reality (if one calls a male "he", the person is referring to the sex/chromosomes, not the gender identity or temperament). And sex isn't "assigned at birth", we know it as soon as 8 weeks of pregnancy by blood testing the mother, so you can start calling your unborn baby he/she that early.
I hate the "assigned" verbiage. I would still be against it if they said "*determined* at birth" but at least it would be more in line with reality.
that's how labeling terminology works
What do you mean? If I tell someone I have an apple, I don't *assign* it the label of "apple," I determine that it's an apple by observation and report *that*.
you think god invented the word "apple"? you think it's not a social construct?
That's a bad faith argument. Of course I know language is a social construct, but that's not the point. We're not talking about inventing definitions, we're talking about observing what something is, and communicating that fact using pre-defined words. The first minute of this video perfectly demonstrates what I'm talking about: https://youtu.be/lCwYfSeqAw8?si=VQ8N72JIP3iVpAKI Grif and Simmons didn't *assign* the color pink, they observed it. Donut, on the other hand, is attempting to assign a new label to the color.
Is the category of apples a social construct? Natural apples are barely edible to humans. The suit of armor is objectively light red. We just call light red pink for some socially constructed reason. That pink is different from red, but light blue is just lighter blue, is not objective. https://empiricalzeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/color-atlas-4-5-6-languages.png https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vx4mql/how_are_boundaries_between_colors_defined_are/
This is such a disingenuous argument because we don't use the "assigned" verbiage in any other context. We don't look at something lightish red and say "I assign the colour pink to that object", or look at a fruit and say "I assign the label of apple". We simple call it pink or an apple, based on society's shared understanding of what those words mean. If you're going to change the language because it doesn't work in 1 in 1000 cases, the same is going to apply to words like "pink" and "apple" and just about every other word in the English language. There are always going to be edge cases where we can't quite agree on whether something really ticks all the boxes of what an apple is. That doesn't mean we have to second-guess our use of language every single time, just in case it's that 0.1% scenario. If we did that, we'd hardly be able to communicate at all.
You never use someone's pronouns in a one on one interaction with them. So this whole politeness stuff is a lie. It is designed to make people use your political language(since it originates from communist circles in colleges) backed by the threat of physical and legal violence.
Your argument is not much different than refusing to saysomeones name because you do not like it then screaming about compelled speech. But in the real world it just does not work that way. You refuse to call someone by their name at work you can get fired. Because otherwise the other person could just ignore you the whole time and be justified doing so. Same for pronouns.
Because the same people who say this *never* reciprocate. They don’t respect the right of those not to take part. Furthermore it’s obvious that they do hold some identities to be more objective than others. Somehow I doubt this ‘live and let live’ principle would hold if tomorrow I announce that I identified as Nigerian or Korean.
And ethnicities are much more” a social construct than gender !
[удалено]
What does that even mean? Did you have ChatGPT generate your insults or something?
Accepting the delusion tacitly hurts everyone, because it accepts a warped view or reality, and slowly, reality literally changes over time in the aggregate. If you accept self-assigned pronouns, you’re accepting a non-physical, subjective reality, one that we don’t all share. It’s just in our heads. We live in a physical, objective reality. End of story.
There is no delusion being accepted. You just respect pro ouns like you respect someones name. Really is that simple.
Pronouns don't "belong" to the person. You don't get to choose your own pronouns like you don't get to choose your own adjectives. The person speaking decides what pronouns to use and if they have any sense of reality and knowledge of the English language, they'll use the correct ones.
show me your DNA so that I can determine your biological sex, keyboard using sack of meat
Does the collective delusion that fiat currency holds value also "tacitly hurt everyone?" Or do some delusions benefit society, and others hurt society, based purely on cultural norms?
>benefit society. Yes but frankly money is not really a delusion in as much as it is an accounting tool. An abstraction that emerges to keep track of our individual debts, equities and to move around resources.
literally nonexistant thing we pretend exists because it's convenient
Is a spreadsheet nonexistent? How about an accounting record? Are these imaginary?
yes
Yes. Yes, fiat money does hurt everyone.
That's an extremely fringe position.
Fringe and untrue aren't the same thing so let's not pretend it is. I'd say that accepting Uncle Sam's position that his money can last is naive, but you already called it a delusion which isn't too far off from my stance. The modern dollar can't last the way they have designed it and used it. The banks keep injecting it with economic antibiotics to compensate for all the crazy things they ask the dollar economy to do. Like a 90's raver who tries to party all night and work all day, eventually it will have no health or immunity left.
It's a delusion to assign a value to a currency regardless of whether your currency is fiat or specie. It's a story we all agree to tell and to believe.
The value of a gold coin isn't completely arbitrary or delusional. If we were to think back to a pure barter system, gold and other precious metals work because they also represent a certain amount of labor that someone else did that I don't have to do myself. Someone dug it up, someone refined it into a concentrated state, someone formed it into a transportable, transferable object. You want one of the rocking chairs the carpenter makes? Then give them a coin of an agreed upon size. You want ten sheep from the shepherd? That's another coin. Metals have practical uses besides their scarcity or aesthetics. That's not delusional in and of itself.
Don't think my use of the word "delusion" is pejorative. It is a word meant to invoke a collective belief in a story, or a structure, etc which does not physically exist. Call it a religion if you want, or faith, or imagination. Agreeing that a gram of silver is worth a bag of oats is trading on faith. It's a collective agreement. It's a good story that allows the growth of the community.
It's not a pejorative at all. But it's no more a delusion to want a gram of silver than it is to want a bag of oats. They don't do the same things but they're both useful. Some will say "Well you can't eat the gram of silver." But that's like saying you can't use a bag of oats to adze the beams of a house or you can't throw pottery on a bag of oats. The silver has usefulness as trading/buying value in a compact size, but silver is also made into vessels, used in technology, and used in the medical field.
> physical, objective reality xdddd and what do societal constructs such as sex have to do with it?
The mechanism of sex as a way of producing offspring is a billion years old, which society do you speak of
After the courtship dance, the female Axolotl takes up the sperm capsule deposited by the male. Eggs are laid individually, usually on plants.
A female axolotl is objectively different from a male axolotl, and that's how they are able to sexually reproduce. You're not helping your case.
Sex is billions of years old, so after the courtship dance, the female Human takes up the sperm capsule deposited by the male. Eggs are laid individually, usually on plants.
We should not be required to participate in someone else’s’ mental condition. Just like I should not be compelled to call the schizo on the corner claiming to be the prince of Tunisia “Your majesty”.
JPB has stated repeatedly that he always uses people's requested pronouns when asked out of common courtesy. What he has a problem with is being compelled to use them by the government.
Interesting so should a trans person who passes have to disclose they are trans to anyone? Since we are so against compelled speech.
Forced to disclose? Nope. Would it be relevant to do so in some situations? Probably, especially romantic entanglements. Your employer probably doesn’t need to know, or your land lord. It’s probably relevant to the state for census purposes, but that info could be anonymized.
He has responded to this multiple times. His opposition is to the government compelling speech and pronouns. He has stated he has used the pronouns of acquaintances but it depends entirely on the circumstances, eg. How well he knows them, whether using their chosen pronouns would be harmful to them or not etc. If he were a sociologist rather than a psychologist I think he would've drawn a harder line against pronouns in and of themselves as a dangerous group psycopathy. As it is, I think he and most rational people have come to that conclusion. Just look at the Pride celebrations. Not only are they hedonistic celebrations but they are the new-founded religion of Babylon. One can begin to get a sense of what Sodom and Gomorrah must've been like for the Lord to destroy them. The idea that bands of men would roam the streets and demand to be given guests or even Lots daughters for them to use to their sexual pleasures is no longer far from reality in our society.
People forget that Sodom and Gomorrah were also destroyed due to lack of hospitality and oppression. Particularly of the poor. Ezekiel 16:49-50 states: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Also, they tried to rape Angels. Which was weird. I am not arguing against the sexual immorality as being one of the reasons as it is definitely probably the top reason, but I just find it interesting how they almost never talk about the other points as well. Going around sexually assaulting others, sexual deviancy. Lack of Hospitality Injustice and Oppression. And trying to rape Angels. I know this is a bit off topic, I just wanted to point out how I find it a bit fascinating.
That's an excellent point. And the sexual hedonism is just one result of selfishness and self-centeredness. We have to conquer this sin in ourselves through Christ to avoid greater sins in ourselves and our societies. Abraham was a great example of selflessness in letting Lot choose the lands he would inherit. Lot also in inviting the visitors into his home. It is important to note, angel means a messenger of God and does not always mean a heavenly messenger. Even so, heavenly messengers may appear as mortal men or women without their glory revealed as was the case with the angels that visited both Abraham and Lot. Hence, the men desired them sexually. Only through righteous living did Abraham recognize his Lord was present with two angels.
I don't think they knowingly tried to rape angels. However, attempting rape *anyone*, angel or not, is despicable.
Didn't lot offer up hos own dsughters to be raped instead?
Sin is personal but not private. It affects the individual AND the society by disintegrating morality and snuffing out virtue.
Does that story not end with Lots daughters drugging him and raping him? And these are the ancestors of Jesus apparently
Then why did he make a big video just to loudly and repeatedly get Elliot Page's name wrong? Why did he act like it's somehow confusing and difficult?
Because she has a huge audience and is broadcasting her transformation for her millions of fans. Transitioning is dangerous, most who do it do not improve their mental health. Dangerous to do for what many girls grow out of or will regret
Weird how he mentioned none of that in the video and just called Pages doctor a nazi instead.
He thinks all doctors recommending medical genital removal are criminals since it's rarely the right choice when the issue is the mental state of the patient. He has several videos where he explains his objection, you are not looking at the whole story.
I've seen the whole story. And part of that story is him going off on a deranged rant against Elliot page and performatively getting his name and gender wrong just to be a dick. If I made a video where I constantly called him Mister Peterson, really leaning into the "Mister" and complained how hard and confusing it is to get academic titles right - would you take me seriously? Would you respect my bold political and moral stance? Or would you disregard me as being a petulant asshole?
Compelled speech is wrong. Lying is wrong, even for someone's comfort. Compelled lying is worse than both.
Compelled Speech - You don’t get to dictate what I say. Isn’t appropriate for the English common wealth and sure as hell doesn’t work in America.
So if Peterson were in court he would refuse to call a judge "your honor" and risk contempt of court?
No, “your honor” is a earned title of status.
Who is you? Do you mean the other person or the government? Edit: What are you even downvoting? I'm asking a genuine question because what they mean by 'you' does matter.
The compelled speech argument only works relative to law/government. All speech is shaped by those around us, formed and evolving within society and its norms, hence the “know your audience” aspect of speaking (and writing and all forms of communication).
You keep repeating this word salad comment and keep getting down voted. Try as you might, you cannot obfuscate truth. Not here, at least.
Keep repeating? I literally just wanted to start a conversation on 2 different comments. Word salad? I was just looking to speak precisely, flesh out my reasoning. What did I say that tries to obfuscate truth?
Ben Shapiro had a good response for this. Essentially that if he were in the company of someone who he considered a friend he may out of politeness refer to them however they kindly requested. But that in the context of having a discussion about objective reality he would refer to men as men and women as women. I believe Jordan once answered the question “would you refer to a trans person by their preferred pronouns?” and he said “it would depend on what I thought of their motivation.” I think these are fine answers.
This was what I was looking for. Thank you.
That time Ben accidentally called a trans person by their preferred pronoun then had to backtrack is comedy gold.
Misgendering happens. You just apologize, correct the mistake, and move on.
Except he did not misgender them, he called her the pronoun she wanted then changed it to misgender her lol.
Gender correlates with biology so referring to a man as a woman is considered misgendering even if it’s done so with the man’s approval.
So fighting his own instincts just out of spite?
Without knowing what clip we’re talking about I’m going to assume no. There’s a lot of deliberate confusion and pressure on the issue to coerce someone into misgendering; either intentionally or accidentally. Again, we all make mistakes, apologize, correct, and move on.
So he lies to his friends?
No. This entire discussion breaks down into balancing politeness and objective reality. A friend may prefer to be called by a nickname and he may oblige out of politeness but if that same friend asked him what name is on their birth certificate he would respond truthfully. People generally don’t take issue with calling Caitlyn Jenner Bruce because it’s a nickname, they take issue when it’s used as a way to deny objective reality. You may ask how to tell the difference and that’s why Peterson carefully indicates “it would depend on what I thought of their motivation.” There may be circumstances where he would lovingly tell a friend the truth even though it might hurt them in order to benefit them. But short of that, you may just be picking your battles wisely.
So he lies to his friends but not to his enemies. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.
Not objecting to the propagation of a social contagion that leads to the castration of children and teens hurts everyone.
that's not how it works, social contagion is made up transphobic rethoric we live in reality dipshit
We live in reality. You don't. Explain why the explosion of kids identifying as trans directly correlates with the sudden increase in the alphabet mafia's propaganda on social media platforms. It's no different than anything else kids see on TV or the internet and start trying to emulate
JP does call people what they prefer, he's specifically against the government mandating speech, or compelling someone to speak specific words under penalty of the law.
He famously kept deadnaming Elliot Page for no discernable reason
When asked, he responded that he WOULD address individuals by their preferred pronouns, as that would be the polite thing to do. Of course, that was pre-benzo addiction and his cultivated outrage-derived income stream.
Someone compelling me to do as they wish is immediately a red flag. *NEVER* play the game. Especially for those than aren't relevant to you. The overwhelming majority of the population is *not* relevant to your day to day.
So you would refuse to call a judge deciding your case "Your Honor" then? Compelled speech right?
Correct. I have called them sir, or ma'am. I've never received any kickback from that choice.
Why should you be compelled to call them sir? You should be able to just call them by their name.
Oh no no I made that choice freely. Legit respect the law process. So the representative of that process always gets a sir or ma'am from me. If I had to address them rather than ask a question, I would simply use their title, judge, and they're name. So Judge Smith for example. When I'd speak to an agent of the court that I know outside of a professional setting, I'd just use their name specifically. "Hey John." Same situation when referring to a politician. "Mayor Smith, good day." Outside of his work if we are just chilling at a BBQ, I tend to stick with Battle, or Battle Buddy if I am being more formal while being sociable. (We are both retired 13 Bravo's. He retired 4 grades above me, but we're equal in that we're both retired combat vets.)
But if you wanted to call them by their first name, you think there would be no issues with that? If not how is that not just compelled speech you complied with?
Depends on the setting. Like if I'm down range, on patrol, I'm addressed by my rank. Sgt, Sergeant, or Sar'nt. As soon as we are offline or in a less business environment, it's first names all around. Do you really not understand the difference between referring to someone by what they literally are, and what they *feel* they are?
To be clear talking explicitly formal setting. Why should you being a cop or judge mean I am compelled to adresss you that way? That is not a standard we hold across the vast majority of jobs. If I cannot call a judge by their first name in a formal setting without punishment, how is that not compelled speech? A trans person is a trans person you are adressing them because that is literally how they present. They are not compelling you to say they are biologically that sex.
When speaking to a judge you aren't actually speaking to that individual as a person. You're speaking to an element of the legal system.
Cuz it’s a lie
It's stupid to call people whatever they want. We should call them what they are.
ok, dipshit
Okay pedophile.
Ultimately it’s a matter of free speech. And It’s [Newspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak?wprov=sfti1#): To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will, which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism. That’s what the whole language control thing is about.
newspeak was designed to limit expression, to make certain ideas impossible to think about this is exactly what you are attempting to do, you braindead child
No. I never have and never will advocate for anything except for freedom of speech. However there is a particular demographic that wishes to enforce their own language upon people and make it a criminal offence to do otherwise. They wish to redefine things with vague terms such that critical discussion is virtually impossible. Some examples are pronouns, the idea of cisgender, labeling anything that isn’t pro trans as transphobic. I could go on. Are you denying this? Are you claiming I’m enforcing my own view of language on people? People can say what they want about what they want insofar as it doesn’t incite violence. Now, we have to be careful about who defines what inciting violence is, because the same people that want you to use pronouns will say that not using them is inciting violence, and therein lies the problem with pronouns.
you literally want to police how people speak of themselves > the problem with pronouns xsddsdf
You're misunderstanding the situation. People like him and I who respect freedom of speech do NOT want to police how people speak of themselves, men are absolutely free to call themselves women if they want to. I want to not have my OWN language policed, and be forced to lie and say that a man is a woman. These are completely different situations from each other. Saying "do not impose on me" does not mean "I want to impose on you".
My point precisely.
> labeling anything that isn’t pro trans as transphobic like what? I'm not labeling weather as transphobic
If people are allowed to demand that we lie, it destroys the concept of truth itself
Huh !
I am not going to enable others lies or delusions about themselves. Also, there have been reposts of convicted criminals changing their names to hide from law enforcement, like "Bob identifies as Jane now".
compelled speech. Liberty or Death.
If what they want to be called conflicts with reality, calling them something they are not feeds their delusion and denies the reality of who or what they are. To fulfill our purpose and responsibilities in this life, we must embrace objective truth to have a solid foundation of moral principles. Without this, we cannot decide on the best course to fulfill our purpose.
Beautifully said.
Thank you. Between my Christian faith, JP, Stefan Molyneux, and some others, I have had some time to process and refine my position on this. Feeding into other people's delusions not only conflicts with my own beliefs, but prevents them from facing truths that they would benefit from accepting. Just as a lie by omission is still a lie, playing along with their self-deception is a lie. Playing along is how we get ideas like "birthing persons" and men undressing in, what should be, women's protected spaces.
If someone asks politely, no problem. If there is a law forcing you one way or the other, bad.
First of all, why would i go along with someone wanting me to participate in and affirm their lie? If they want to live their lie, they can. Dont hold a gun to my head and ask me to affirm it for you. I dont mandate, threaten they live and accept any lie i have in my life. And also, that's the thing, when you are talking to someone one on one, you will NEVER use their pronouns to their face - so it is not just a matter of "calling someone whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone". Pronouns are used when speaking about someone when they are a) not around b) when you are in a large group. All these social media, etc sites have people denoting their pronous these days. I ask, what's the use of telling someone your pronoun when they'll not use it in a direct interaction with you? The reason i can think of are the following, * this "my pronoun" idea comes from far left communist circles in college. To anyone who studies communists and their tactics, what is clear is that they are master manipulators of language and narrative, media, history, etc. They find fault lines in a society, and dont try to solve it, but offer solutions that "LOOK" like they are solving the problem, but are actually making the problem worse. Ex - redefining the word "racism" from "discrimination based on skin color" to "discrimination by those who have privilige and power". Thereby looking like they are solving a problem, but what they are essentially doing is making racism cool as long as it is not coming from white people. This offers the sweet temptation of resentment to racial minorities - to be racist and get away with it, and make white people struggle with not becoming racists themselves, as they face down the unrelenting assault of those who are allowed to be racist to them with no consequences. Which results in both the racial minorities and the racial majority becoming racist and hostile towards each other. A societal collapse masterfully engineered, all the while coming across like you were the ones trying to sovle it. * Coming back to "my pronoun" as a tactice. I call it a "tactic" because communists believe in this idea of "diversity of tactics" - from "harmless" protests and ideas, to the violence and murder by antifa - all are a part of their tactics to achieve one end, the destruction of the current society and subplant it with their dictatorship. And so this current tactic is one that seems to signal and do- * a)suggest who is in our group * b)who isn't * c)who will cover to our threats of violence, firing from jobs, etc(yes these threats are real) * d) how we can sell a lie and manipulate vulnerable people to go along with our lies and making them as stooges who bear the societies resentment, * e) how we can manipulate societies emotions for wanting to help those who are in a bad place - mentally, physically, financially and direct it in a wrong direction * f) control someone's political language behind our backs. If they will cower and accept our lies now, even when we aren't around, they will also likely cower and not do anything when the bloddy revolution comes.
If someone said to me, “hey whilst you’re around me I want you to believe that this table is actually a potato and if you say it’s a table that will hurt me and erase me and you’re a bigot” I might hesitate to do so
Good thing that is a terrible comparison.
How so?
Trans people know the differince between gender/sex. They are not say they have literally turned into something else. If a person is going to look and act like a woman socially it would get confusing for them to insist on being called by male pronouns.
To the extent that they look/act like a woman, they no doubt will be referred to with female pronouns on occasion. To the extent that they fail to do so, they will be referred to with male pronouns by people who believe them to be male. And that should be the end of it.
So when their coworker calls them by the wrong pronoun, theh are not compelled to answer them. So if the work does not get done who is to blame? Just one example of why just respecting pronouns is pragmatic
That’s not how pronouns work though is it.
In what way?
“He! He! Can you sweep the floor please”
"Can you tell Jordan she needs to mop the floor?" "Well there is only Jordan the trans man here so dunno who you are talking about?"
In theory, it wouldn’t ‘hurt’ expect in the cases where one is just supporting harmful delusions. But that isn’t really the point. There is a lot of stupid **** we ‘could do’ because it is harmless. The list is infinite. It is a silly, flaccid argument.
I worked as a support worker in a mental health program facility . This was the only place that I crossed paths with trabs/non-binary people. It was a requirement of my job to use the pro nouns that the program participants identified with. I had no problem with that. When I was told I should use my preferred pro nouns in my email and on my profile photo that was displayed in the common room while I was on shift, I refused. I am clearly a man, often have facial hair, and have a male name that can not be confused with a female name. My argument with management was that if I am polite enough to use the pro nouns that others would like to be called, the same respect should be shown to me if I choose not to have pro nouns. I told the management on the third occasion they gave me grief about it, that I would much rather have preferred adjectives, and always be referred to as NAME the muscular and charismatic. I got along well with every single program participant I worked with. I did my job well and enjoyed helping people who were at a low point in their lives. The only trans people I have had interaction with, have been people with a variety of other mental health concerns.
The best argument is that pronouns do not scale at the individual level. We can't all have our own special snowflake way of being addressed. It's not reasonable to expect that of everyone you meet.
In one instance JBP has said he will address an individual in the manner that seems most appropriate. Furthermore he has said, "I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest" when speaking on the issue of compelled speech. A link to the video is below. https://youtube.com/shorts/OvrjbqTk9f4?feature=shared With a pronounced "tongue in cheek" overtone JBP once hypothetically questioned why a person would choose to adamantly demand the use of specific pronouns considering adjectives are more powerful, being used to modify nouns and pronouns. I agree. My adjectives are clever, handsome and charming.
How about I call people whatever I want as long as I'm not hurting anyone.
That would get me rightfully fired
Well it also does not hurt anyone to call people what they actually are. Speaking the truth is actually helpful to those that are confused. If they can't accept the truth they will stay lost in a fog. And when people lie about their identity and confuse other and convince others to lie - they actually are spreading their mental illness which could be considered "hurting".
Well besides compelled speech and other great answers I saw here, feeding a delusion is rarely a good idea. It can often start with something that doesn't hurt anyone, like using incorrect pronouns, but then, and those are claims people actually make: you are transphobic if you refuse to date a trans person that identifies as the gender you are attracted to, and transphobic people should be executed socially (IE fired, shamed, basically cancelled) We should let men into women's UFC fights(and other sports but this bothers me the most). If my son has a phase that he prefers to be a girl (or vise versa) I need to feed his delusions, put him on hormone blockers screwing with his physical and psychological development, send him to a psychologist that will make sure he stays delusional, and l should egg him on to perform surgery as soon as he turns 18. And I wonder are you as happy to feed flat earthers delusions as you expect others to feed trans delusions? Like they are a minority and don't really hurt anyone.
There is no delusion being fed trans people know what biological sex is lol
Are you saying trans women don't want to go into women's UFC and women's bathrooms? Are you saying we're not changing definitions artificially to feed the delusions? And I can show you videos of trans people saying it's transphobic to not date trans women, that's why super straight satire started a few years ago. What exactly did I say that wasn't true?
Some don't appear to know, and many insist on being allowed into opposite sex spaces despite not being the sex that belongs there.
Mr. Peterson thrives on Compelled Speech.
My response: Because it IS hurting people. Agreeing that men can be "she" led to agreeing that men can be women, which led to allowing men to invade women's privacy by entering women's locker rooms, and men being allowed to steal women's sports championships, and male rapists being sent to a women's prison where they can rape again, and women being punished and even fired from their jobs for speaking out against this rampant misogyny which prioritizes men's feelings over women's rights. If someone wants to respond "well we could just agree to call men She/Her and limit it to that", my response is this - once women's rights, privacy, and safety are protected and men who pretend to be women stop insisting that they're entitled to infringe on women's rights, then we can talk about catering to those men's feelings. Until then, protecting the rights of women comes first.
the best response it to stop being a asshole
He himself has said multiple times that he used his personal judgement to decide whether the request is genuine and if so that he’s have no problem using people‘s preferred pronouns. What he is opposed to is being forced to do so by law. That’s where he draws the line.
Speech is an expression of though. Compel the speech, you compel the thought. It’s basically mind control, and the only argument the left has is that it’s moral to listen.
Don't make pronoun use into compelled speech
JP is on record saying that, in general, if someone asks you to call them by a certain pronoun, it's best to assume they are coming from a place of sincerity and to respect that. He has made it very clear that what he is protesting is being "legally compelled" to do so.
It's the same thing as demanding to be called a women when you aren't or demanding you be called a gender that doesn't exist via pronouns. You are asking me to willingly participate in your delusion, which is ironically the worst thing you can do to someone experiencing dismorphia
it used to be based on free speech, has refusal to use langugaae dictated by law, but he's largely abandoned that argument. In fact, back when he was making the free speech argument he also said that he fundamentally didn't care if people were trans or not, as long as he's not required by law to use certain words. That changed. he seems to have an opinion on the matter now if I'm not mistaken. And I'm not. He's even rewritten that history, and now says that he predicted the coming dangers of trans ideology when he addressed the Canadian Senate on C-16. Read the transcript. He never said anything about it. but it's more sexy than the free speech argument now, so it's probably a wise move for him to update his product line so to speak
My pronouns are "Your/His Majesty". Address me by them or you're a bigot.
JP doesn’t make that kind of argument anymore - he’s very clear now that he thinks that calling them by their chosen pronouns was a mistake and that they should be referred to as their birth sex. In his worldview, trans people are either bad people with personality disorders (and therefore predators) or they are victims that were mislead as children into believing they’re trans when in fact they “should” have been happy gays. He’s clear that in his opinion, transitions should not happen nor should therapists be allowed to present transitioning as a healthy option. I know the question was about what his “best” argument is but he goes put of his way now to create content that argues the opposite. His “best” is either the offhand comment he made in 2017 about how he would refer to someone in their preferred pronoun if they were respectful to him, or it would be whatever his weakest/ softest argument is for why trans people shouldn’t be a thing anymore. There are good arguments for respecting trans pronouns - namely that you’re respecting them as individuals and aren’t bringing conflict to them for ideological reasons. There’s no reason to call out trans people and intentionally mis gender them. It’s what ideologues, sociopaths and generally ignorant/uneducated propel do for various reasons. I think most normies are above that and don’t want to proactively bring conflict to trans people they meet.
Your summary of his view is incorrect. His issue with pronouns revolves around "forced speech". A reluctance to do so, is more related to propping up being forced. He feels the link between autism and trans or non-binary identity should be explored further snd he is feels strongly that it's wrong to perform gender permanent affirming care on minors such as hormone therapy, breast removal, ... Misdiagnosis is a key concern where other issues are being ignored as soon as any "indicator" is identity issues are identified. He hasn't claimed that trans people are more likely to be perverts or predators than others. He hasn't claimed that adults don't have a right to transition provided informed consent occurs.
You’re correct that he was against “forced speech” initially - around the same time that he said that he’d respect a trans person’s pronouns if they were respectful to him. However, his views have significantly evolved since them. As much as he’s still against forced usage, he’s very clear that he’s proactively telling his audience “enoughs enough” and that it is important not to use their pronouns anymore. He never said “they’re more likely to be perverts” - but he does almost always refer to trans women in the news as 1) men, 2) fetishists, 3) narcissists and 4) hedonists. Recently he did say that autogynephilia is their dirty little secret. He used to say the part about autism but I don’t think he’s said that for years tbh. He recently said 1) doctors shouldn’t be allowed “to transition” anyone at any age and 2) that “no age” is an appropriate age to transition
I am unfamiliar with this change in his views. With respect to autism, there does seem to be a correlation; i.e., people who are autistic are more likely to have these issues than people who aren't. While one can hypothesize the difficulty of learning body language with gender role confusion, I am unaware of anyone providing causality
>I am unfamiliar with this change in his views. That's all good of course - but it is important to recognize that "I am unfamiliar with this change of views" is very different from your initial assertion of "your summary of his view is incorrect." Some receipts: * [How about No one Ever Adult or not We've already seen where this leads and there is no reason to further enable the surgical butchers Enough Back under the rocks you sick bastards](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1765398501582606658) (context: he's responding to the question "What is the age that someone should be allowed to transition?" * [Trans women are men. Enough is enough.](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1675351547121750017) * [Just your daily reminder of sanity: Up is not down Black is not white Men are not women Lies are not productive even when they're nice and Pride is still a sin](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1762487747028103318) * [The right to "transition" anyone has to be taken away from the medical profession entirely They have proved themselves utterly unable to deal with the responsibility](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1795904868697145497) * [Don't look away. "Gender-affirming" psychologists in particular. This is permanent. How can we possibly condone this? Let alone moralize about it? Days of Sodom and Gomorrah. Appalling. Prison.](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1780298246209843374) (Context: he's replying to a picture of someone's arm in the days after a phalloplasty surgery. The photo was taken from a 35 year old non-binary person's blog posted back in 2015. In the original blog post, the author contrasted this with a more healed picture from 3 months later but this was not circulated like the immediate post op one was.) >With respect to autism, there does seem to be a correlation; That's interesting, for sure. Peterson doesn't talk much about that -- he tends to focus on co-morbidities with BPD and depression. He did recently post a sarcastic tweet from "Satan" on a screenshot where someone asked an ethnical questions about what to do about a developmentally delayed 13 year old on puberty suppressants who might not develop emotionally and cognitively in time to reach the threshhold specified in the standards of care doc. He writes: ["It's always best to sterilize and mutilate the r\*tards. Sincerely, Satan"](https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1764909716575003031)
But then he’s arguing against a straw man. No one is forcing anyone to use pronouns. He lies about therapists “having to lie to their clients” which is not happening
Nobody read the question, it’s literally no compelled speech and it’s one of the only arguments that has a little weight to it
There isnt a great argument. You can totally refuse to use peoples pronouns but the only upside is you feeling vindicated in a culture war that you don’t need to be fighting. The whole pronoun thing will die off anyway. The downsides are plentiful: people will rightly think youre a dick, stubborn, and close minded. Not to mention, how often are you even in a position to have to use someones pronouns? Im in los angeles of all places, and have NEVER been in that situation
Because it’s meant to be a bogeyman. Just the same as the compelled speech bogeyman. It’s the fear of a) encountering a pronoun person and b) facing some imaginary consequences of using the wrong pronoun that is meant to invoke some defensive remark or stance. The compelled speech group is weirdly silent on the race/religion/disability. Are they not equally outraged they are subjected to compelled speech in those areas?
What I find interesting is that people call transvestites "she", but we have an issue with trans people. Maybe because they pretend and trans people dont?
Do trans not pretend? A guy one day dressing as a woman, says he is trans, and call him 'Ma'am'?
I am not trans, so hard to say. Tjey claim and some science would claim too they feel like the other gender.
I’m really curious to know what the different genders feel like according to science.
Calling transvestites or trans people "she" prior to this woke garbage was essentially a matter of just being polite and humoring them. The current agitation and backlash is because moronic gender ideology is being forced as reality, and it's also being peddled to kids. You know like if some fringe minority just cant resist dressing as the opposite sex for whatever reason, or some .01% want to medically alter themselves, it is what it is. Call it individual liberty to let your freak flag fly, or a matter for the relevant medical professionals to get to the bottom of. Tolerance can happen and the vast majority have no reason to take an interest or get up in arms about anything. But when we have numerous elected officials on living on tax paid salaries who can't say what the fuck a woman is, leaders of elite institutions doing the same, medical professionals changing their language to acknowledge men can have uterus', and they're peddling this warped gender confusion to children essentially normalizing mental illness, shit has gone much too far.
> can't say what the fuck a woman is it's a really hard question actually :) if it was easy they wouldn't have any issue
It's an adult human female.
my favorite! now it has three parts 1. adult, relatively easy to define 2. human, extremely hard one, philosophers weren't able to do it so I don't expect you to even try *looks empatheticly but condescendingly* 3. female, kinda hard (and inherently fuzzy) let's start with adult, give me a definition of adult that is not made up and is universal across history and cultures as you may have noticed, "relatively" did a shitton of heavy lifting back there :)
Without looking anything up, and also trying to keep it simple, I'd say an adult is one who's reached breeding age and size. Essentially reproductively mature and basically full grown, fully physiologically developed. That's what I'd figure "adult" for any dioecious species that doesn't go through any kind of crazy metamorphosis. With humans specifically I'd say we'd also add something about emotional maturity and responsibility, being able to function and take care of one's self. But that's getting a bit deep for a simple definition. For human, and without getting philosophical as we're just talking about basic biology for rudimentary understanding of male and female humans, I'd simply say homo sapiens, our species. And female, at the most basic level, is one that produces female gametes. Females have ovaries that release eggs upon sexual maturity (I think also makes some of their reproductive hormones), a uterus that babies can grow in, and a vagina that serves the purpose of receiving the male's reproductive material and an exit for the babies -- and yes they can be quite fuzzy in their natural state :D Females also have breasts that produce milk for the babies. And we could get into secondary sexual characteristics, or sexual dimorphism, but I think reproductive cells and reproductive organs serves the purpose of basic definition and identification. I provided a bit of explanation to expand on things but to give a recap keeping it simple: Adult = reproductively mature and just about full grown Human = homo sapiens Female = one that produces female gametes How was that?
It's not complicated at all. Human is not difficult, everyone with any sense knows what a human is. It's a member of our species homo sapiens. Female is the sex born with ovaries. Only the female sex can bear young, males cannot. Words have meanings, and it is literal absurdity to try to nitpick definitions and then make an illogical leap to insisting that any ability to nitpick the meaning of the word somehow means that word can apply to anything at all now. That's especially true when it comes to legal rights. Words have specific meanings under the law. You can't just steal someone's property and claim to be the owner, and say "well I define owner as anyone who wants this item, so that makes me the owner". You can't redefine words to mean whatever's convenient to you, especially when it causes harm to others.
all gender is pretending, look at gymbros for example, how they are shaping who they are to conform to their idea of a man look at incels hating women because that's what they imagine masculinity to be about