Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[koti]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So you don't care if I call you 'they', and you will call someone born female 'he' if requested?

I've got to say that talking to you has become very difficult.

 Nothing has changed zapatos, I was always difficult to talk to. Call me old fashioned but I’m a man and would prefer to be refered to as one.

Edited October 14, 2021 by koti

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

 Call me old fashioned but I’m a man and would prefer to be refered to as one.

So perhaps you can see the confusion that causes when you refuse to call others what they would be preferred to be called.

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

I can sequence that:

The generally accepted proportion of the population who have intersex genetic conditions is 1.7%, so no, you can't. 

[koti]

7 minutes ago, Arete said:

The generally accepted proportion of the population who have intersex genetic conditions is 1.7%, so no, you can't. 

So "Gender dysphoria" is what I was refering to and whether your "intersex genetic conditions" is the same thing or you have your data biased by some kind of agenda is out of my scope of interest as I have to finish watching Dave Chappele's new standup. But sure, use your 1.7% and dismiss the countless transgender people in the media who decided to become someone different. Caitlyn Jenner became woman of the year in her first year of being a  woman, isn't that something?

Epidemiology[edit]

See also: Transgender § Population figures, and Transsexual § Prevalence

The DSM-5 estimates that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth are diagnosable with gender dysphoria.^[75]

According to Black's Medical Dictionary, gender dysphoria “occurs in one in 30,000 male births and one in 100,000 female births.”^[76] Studies in European countries in the early 2000s found that about 1 in 12,000 natal male adults and 1 in 30,000 natal female adults seek out sex reassignment surgery.^[77] Studies of hormonal treatment or legal name change find higher prevalence than sex reassignment, with, for example a 2010 Swedish study finding that 1 in 7,750 adult natal males and 1 in 13,120 adult natal females requested a legal name change to a name of the opposite gender.^[77]

Studies that measure transgender status by self-identification find even higher rates of gender identity different from sex assigned at birth (although some of those who identify as transgender or gender nonconforming may not experience clinically significant distress and so do not have gender dysphoria). A study in New Zealand found that 1 in 3,630 natal males and 1 in 22,714 natal females have changed their legal gender markers.^[77] A survey of Massachusetts adults found that 0.5% identify as transgender.^[77][78] A national survey in New Zealand of 8,500 randomly selected secondary school students from 91 randomly selected high schools found 1.2% of students responded "yes" to the question "Do you think you are transgender?".^[79] Outside of a clinical setting, the stability of transgender or non-binary identities is unknown.^[77]

Research indicates people who transition in adulthood are up to three times more likely to be male assigned at birth, but that among people transitioning in childhood the sex ratio is close to 1:1.^[80] The prevalence of gender dysphoria in children is unknown due to the absence of formal prevalence studies.<sup>[40]"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria</sup>

 

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So perhaps you can see the confusion that causes when you refuse to call others what they would be preferred to be called.

The confusion is in the fact that some people want to legislate it by law.

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

So "Gender dysphoria" is what I was refering to and whether your "intersex genetic conditions" is the same thing or you have your data biased by some kind of agenda is out of my scope of interest as I have to finish watching Dave Chappele's new standup. But sure, use your 1.7% and dismiss the countless transgender people in the media who decided to become someone different.

 

Intersex and gender dysphoria are not the same thing and confounding them shows a considerable lack of understanding.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Arete

[koti]

Just now, Arete said:

Intersex and gender dysphoria are not the same thing and confounding them shows a considerable lack of understanding.

 

But you are the one who conflated them, not me.

33 minutes ago, koti said:

I can sequence that:

”…about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth are diagnosable with gender dysphoria”

and you want to legislate by law to prosecute people for not using „proper” pronouns. 

 

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

But you are the one who conflated them, not me.

You literally quoted me saying genetically intersex individuals, then cited statistics pertaining to gender dysphoria in the same post. 

[Peterkin]

35 minutes ago, koti said:

Call me old fashioned but I’m a man and would prefer to be refered to as one.

Shingles doesn't care.

[CharonY]

43 minutes ago, koti said:

and you want to legislate by law to prosecute people for not using „proper” pronouns. 

I see we have reverted to argument A). Again, there is no legislation for that and folks are not prosecuted for misgendering. It is not about enforcing proper pronouns. 

[koti]

3 minutes ago, Arete said:

You literally quoted me saying genetically intersex individuals, then cited statistics pertaining to gender dysphoria in the same post. 

You seem to be right, lets use 1.7% then. 
I wonder, how many of those 1.7% actually had surgery and how many of them changed their mind over the period of say 10 years from their surgery? Furthernore, how much money globally is involved in pharmacology and surgery pertaining to those individuals who decided to have surgery and hormone therapy (and/or whatever other pharmacology or however you call it), media mentioned numerous times that Caitlyn Jenner spent 4 milion dollars on procedures. Lastly but certainly not leastly, how the hell does all this adhere to what I’m advocating for which is - don’t put me in jail for calling Caitlyn Jenner a dude who decided to become a woman which he eventually isn’t?

 

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I see we have reverted to argument A). Again, there is no legislation for that and folks are not prosecuted for misgendering. It is not about enforcing proper pronouns. 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Not about being offensive ???
How many people have lost their jobs, been severely financially impacted, or had to defend themselves against charges that someone brought up because they were offended that they did not use their preferred pronoun ?
( go back about 4 pages; theVat posted one such example, where there was no discrimination, simply offense taken )

Like I said in a previous post ...
If I said about gays or transexuals what Peterkin said about priests, that 'they deress funny and God only knows ( he does ! ) what they get up to in the closet', what would your response be ?
I'm willing to bet you would find that offensive.
So why the double standard.
Are we allowed to offend some groups, but not others ?

Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy ?
( I forget who asked, this thread moves way too fast to keep up )

[zapatos]

28 minutes ago, koti said:

The confusion is in the fact that some people want to legislate it by law.

I'm not referring to the law, I'm referring to the fact that you want others to respect your preferences, but you refuse to grant them that same courtesy. It seems this is more of an emotional issue for you rather than one derived from reason.

7 minutes ago, koti said:

Furthernore, how much money globally is involved in pharmacology and surgery pertaining to those individuals who decided to have surgery and hormone therapy (and/or whatever other pharmacology or however you call it), media mentioned numerous times that Caitlyn Jenner spent 4 milion dollars on procedures. Lastly but certainly not leastly, how the hell does all this adhere to what I’m advocating for which is - don’t put me in jail for calling Caitlyn Jenner a dude who decided to become a woman which he eventually isn’t?

That has got to be the biggest red herring I've ever seen.

8 minutes ago, koti said:

what I’m advocating for which is - don’t put me in jail for calling Caitlyn Jenner a dude

Oh for God's sake...

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

 Lastly but certainly not leastly, how the hell does all this adhere to what I’m advocating for which is - don’t put me in jail for calling Caitlyn Jenner a dude who decided to become a woman which he eventually isn’t?

Because that's a strawman? Trundling all the way back to page 8 to quote my first post in the thread: 

"No one is forcing him to believe in gender dysphoria, or accept the biological fact that gender is not fixed at birth. They are compelling him not to discriminate against those who do. As such, his right to question the validity of gender fluidity remains protected. The only thing being taken away is his "right" to discriminate against specific individuals based on their identity. Which brings the argument down to "You are denying my "right" to treat people differently based on their gender identity" which, yes - is the intent of the law. Watch me play this tiny violin. "

[koti]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm not referring to the law, I'm referring to the fact that you want others to respect your preferences, but you refuse to grant them that same courtesy. It seems this is more of an emotional issue for you rather than one derived from reason.

That has got to be the biggest red herring I've ever seen.

Oh for God's sake...

I apologize but thats it for me in this thread. Good to see you again zapatos, it was good to find all you folks in good health here. I miss "Strange" though, I dropped him a message a few months ago and he hasn't replied - he always did.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

Good to see you again zapatos,

You too! 😀

[CharonY]

38 minutes ago, koti said:

You seem to be right, lets use 1.7% then. 
I wonder, how many of those 1.7% actually had surgery and how many of them changed their mind over the period of say 10 years from their surgery? Furthernore, how much money globally is involved in pharmacology and surgery pertaining to those individuals who decided to have surgery and hormone therapy (and/or whatever other pharmacology or however you call it), media mentioned numerous times that Caitlyn Jenner spent 4 milion dollars on procedures. Lastly but certainly not leastly, how the hell does all this adhere to what I’m advocating for which is - don’t put me in jail for calling Caitlyn Jenner a dude who decided to become a woman which he eventually isn’t?

 

 

Note that no one has provided any evidence of pronoun persecution. Just made the claim based on nothing as far as I can tell.

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Silly me, I forgot, the new PC pastime is re-writing classic books, because the language used at the time, offends 'modern' sensibilities.

While I agree there is a tiny lunatic fringe that may want to sanitize Huck Finn or Catch 22  or whatever,  I think this is mostly a straw man in this topic.   A very small group is unable to comprehend historical context (or the Stalinist dangers of rewriting) and they do occasionally provide fodder for clickbait when they erupt somewhere.  This group hardly represents any vast brigade of political correctness.  But I'm sure Murdochs, NewsMax,  and OAN would love to get their subscribers to believe it.   

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

While I agree there is a tiny lunatic fringe that may want to sanitize Huck Finn or Catch 22  or whatever,  I think this is mostly a straw man in this topic.   A very small group is unable to comprehend historical context (or the Stalinist dangers of rewriting) and they do occasionally provide fodder for clickbait when they erupt somewhere.  This group hardly represents any vast brigade of political correctness.  But I'm sure Murdochs, NewsMax,  and OAN would love to get their subscribers to believe it.   

Again, outrage sells, and some are very good at fueling it (including folks like Peterson). Is the perpetuum mobile of money-making (and why facebook was so bloody reluctant to take off deadly misinformation who cares if a few hundred thousands might die if money is to be had?).

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So perhaps you can see the confusion that causes when you refuse to call others what they would be preferred to be called.

This is normally where someone says "game, set,  match, " but we left Normal a long ways back.   

This gyre of whirling plastic could spin forever.  Seems unfortunately typical when discussions come down to whether or not words are harmful.  And that's about what actions the words connect with,  often what sort of work or school environment can be formed by those words and what threats they may imply.     

[koti]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This is normally where someone says "game, set,  match, " but we left Normal a long ways back.

Was this a 5 set match or a 3 set match in your case TheVat?

[Peterkin]

So... um... does Professor Peterson actually have any political ideas?

That's just another of the myriad matters on which I am unclear. Whining, yes. Ranting, yes. Posturing, yes - oh, plenty of that! Snapping at students, check. Baiting opponents, often. Ideas...?  I didn't see any.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Note that no one has provided any evidence of pronoun persecution. Just made the claim based on nothing as far as I can tell.

And then run away and failed to respond with anything beyond emotional outbursts

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

And then run away and failed to respond with anything beyond emotional outbursts

That's pretty low, INow, making accusations after people have 'left the room'.
Simply ask, and you shall receive ...

Canadian Father Jailed for Speaking Out about Trans-Identifying Child (city-journal.org)

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

That's pretty low, INow, making accusations after people have 'left the room'.

Horseshit. All I did was call HIM out for running away and ceasing participation after ignoring at least 4 direct requests for an answer. HE obviously couldn’t answer so took HIS ball and went home like a snot nosed child after realizing HE had picked a fight HE couldn’t win. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by iNow

[Peterkin]

 

Quote

It turned out that the school had been feeding her transgender ideology, and that she’d already begun “socially transitioning” to a male identity under the direction of a psychologist,

That's from a conservative new York-based magazine.

https://www.city-journal.org/magazine?issue=344

this is Global news -  Canadian mainstream (conservative) network.

Quote

The mother — who has been supportive of her son’s wishes and first got him in contact with a psychologist when the boy first expressed his desire to transition — has been separated from the father for a number of years.They urged the father to engage with the boy’s medical team and to listen to his son.

Slightly different point of view.

Edited October 15, 2021 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Slightly different point of view.

Also a slightly different reason the father was jailed.

From the link provided:

Quote

A B.C. father who has been accused of repeatedly violating court orders limiting what he can say publicly about his transgender child’s decision to pursue hormone treatment has been ordered to remain in jail until his trial next month.

Before taking a turn into the criminal realm, the family dispute started when the father made a bid in court to block a decision by his teenage child — who was assigned female at birth but identifies as male and has the support of his mother — to pursue gender-affirming testosterone hormone therapy in 2018.

The case made it to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which sided with the child in January 2020 and reasserted the right of young people to make their own health decisions.

Since that decision, the Crown contends the father has repeatedly broadcast or published information that contravenes court orders prohibiting him from discussing aspects of the case that could identify key parties or the child’s medical status.