Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

'Currently' is the operative word because if conditions change, they can be something else. What this shows is that gender can be dynamic, to adapt to vaying conditions.

In addition, biological mechanisms have some level of stochasticity so the transition can be imperfect but depending on what you research it might be ignored because it does not help with your study. Yet obviously biologically it happens. You might as well look at hormonal level, which are a continuous variable so you could even asses different degrees of differentiation rather than a binary one. It just depends on how precisely you measure.

And that is a common theme in nature, most things run on a continuum as biochemical systems are rarely just on and off. If we wanted to be really precise one could create a quantitative measures that would span the whole continuum between male and female. 

Whether that is useful for us (as observer) is a different story. But nature does not really care, it is just provides the mechanisms.

[koti]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In nature in general. Are humans unique?

Oh I think we very much are. We're the only species capable of being so incredibly full of ourselves.

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In addition, biological mechanisms have some level of stochasticity so the transition can be imperfect but depending on what you research it might be ignored because it does not help with your study. Yet obviously biologically it happens. You might as well look at hormonal level, which are a continuous variable so you could even asses different degrees of differentiation rather than a binary one. It just depends on how precisely you measure.

 

Yeah, it can get very messy from what I've read. Ultimately, when studying nature, I think we are superimposing theoretical frameworks on nature that may or may not be durable and are, in fact, pertinent only under certain conditions. For example, as in this discussion, how increasingly tenuous the binary theory of gender is... it only works viewing through a coarse lens.

Edited November 5, 2021 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah, it can get very messy from what I've read. Ultimately, when studying nature, I think we are superimposing theoretical frameworks on nature that may or may not be durable and are, in fact, pertinent only under certain conditions. For example, as in this discussion, how increasingly tenuous the binary theory of gender is... it only works viewing through a coarse lens.

That is a very good description what I was trying to convey.

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, koti said:

In spoilt university students or in clownfish? Or both?

Is this another one of those “strong arguments with reasoning” to which you earlier referred?

Or, perhaps it was one of these?

On 11/4/2021 at 2:48 PM, koti said:

I wonder if its possible that the next raid at the US Capitol will be done by those self-centered university students with too much privilege.

8 hours ago, koti said:

I’d ask how your search for Dave Chappelle’s caucasian ancestors is going

 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

That is a very good description what I was trying to convey.

Thanks.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

But again, that is not what I have a problem with.
I will not be forced to say what someone else wants me to say.
( unless I want to become President, become a citizen, or take a certain job )

Here's a more down-to-Earth example I'd like you to consider regarding the gender terms issue. Some people are uncomfortable when anyone around their same age or work status calls them "sir" or "ma'am", because equals shouldn't use such terms of respect with each other. How do you feel about those terms? Are they really that different than he/him she/her etc?

I have a bad habit of calling everybody I don't know sir/ma'am when I deal with them, and I never thought about how it might be misconstrued since many of these folks are younger than I am. I never intended it to be sarcastic or insulting, but others don't know that. I remember one guy who told me, "Don't call me sir, my dad's still alive!" I laughed, but that might really have made the guy uncomfortable and old. 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Here's a more down-to-Earth example I'd like you to consider regarding the gender terms issue. Some people are uncomfortable when anyone around their same age or work status calls them "sir" or "ma'am", because equals shouldn't use such terms of respect with each other. How do you feel about those terms? Are they really that different than he/him she/her etc?

I have a bad habit of calling everybody I don't know sir/ma'am when I deal with them, and I never thought about how it might be misconstrued since many of these folks are younger than I am. I never intended it to be sarcastic or insulting, but others don't know that. I remember one guy who told me, "Don't call me sir, my dad's still alive!" I laughed, but that might really have made the guy uncomfortable and old. 

I think that's a pretty  typical American form of a address. 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think that's a pretty  typical American form of a address. 

But if someone asked you not to use it....

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But if someone asked you not to use it....

Then why use it. If ones desire is to have a positive outcome from an encounter, it makes sense to respect their wishes. It's a non-problem that's being made into one.... who wants that.

Edited November 6, 2021 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

And you won't be called an ignorant bigot, or have some 'holier-than-thou' internet poster make fun of your spelling mistakes, question your intelligence/communication skills, and call that a valid rebuttal of your argument

These are foreseeable consequences of every opinion ever posted on the internet. None of these consequences force anyone to say anything they don't want to say. 

[Arete]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah, it can get very messy from what I've read. Ultimately, when studying nature, I think we are superimposing theoretical frameworks on nature that may or may not be durable and are, in fact, pertinent only under certain conditions. For example, as in this discussion, how increasingly tenuous the binary theory of gender is... it only works viewing through a coarse lens.

Well said. The deeper in the weeds you get, the greyer the categories get.

As an example, you would generally think alive and not alive were fairly good binary categories. But then you have obligate endosymbionts, retroviruses, virophages, facultative lysogeny, transposable elements, etc which all blur the line between organelle and self replicating life form.

Obviously in an XY mating system, most individuals fall in to either XX (female) or XY (male). But one in 58 individuals is born with an intersex condition, and can be XXY, X0, XXX, or a myriad of other conditions that result in an intermediate phenotype. Further, twin studies and hormone studies have confirmed a genetic basis for transgenderism even in non-intersex, trans identifying individuals. It is a biological reality that there are human individuals that exist in a grey area between male and female.

I have a friend who has Klinefelter's syndrome and identifies a non-binary, using they/them pronouns. Coincidentally, they are not a bored, agenda driven university student in a safe space. 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Then why use it. If ones desire is to have a positive outcome from an encounter, it makes sense to respect their wishes. It's a non-problem that's being made into one.... who wants that.

That cuts both ways ...
If you want a positive outcome from a discussion, forcing/coercing them to say what you want to hear, is not productive.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

That cuts both ways ...
If you want a positive outcome from a discussion, forcing/coercing them to say what you want to hear, is not productive.

I’m reminded of how the actual law keeps getting misrepresented through this thread. 

Please, my friend, help me understand…

By what specific mechanism are you being forced or coerced to do absolutely anything at all?

Your position is being challenged. Criticized. Flaws highlighted and shown. As we do in science. 

But you’re claiming coercion. You’re claiming use of force. Kinda like you’ve been mistakenly claiming about the law itself. 

Sorry, brother. I’m not living this same fantasy with you, but a fantasy it is. 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Sorry, brother. I’m not living this same fantasy with you, but a fantasy it is. 

So you think it is a fantasy that people who have opposing opinions are labelled ignorant and bigoted ?
Yet its happened in this very thread.

And you might think this fantasy I'm living in makes me delusional.
Just like I might think someone who refers to themselves as 'Ze', is.
So, contrary to previous statements, you've no problem calling out delusional people. Or maybe you're of the opinion that only those delusions you agree with are valid.

[Peterkin]

Maybe every human being on Earth is delusional.

They still have rights under constitutions and legal systems enacted by other delusional people.

And one of those rights, atm, is self-designation.

That may mean sometimes somebody who wants to keep a position as shaper of youthful minds, or someone who wants to stay in charge of a department staffed with some flakes and kooks, has to learn one of the nine new gender pronouns - which he never actually has to use except possibly in reports, since the standard form of address "you" is already gender-neutral - well that's child's play compared to having had to learn all the professional jargon needed to bullshit his way into the job in the first place.   

Then again, the political climate can change in a heartbeat (though not very probably through radical tolerants storming Parliament) and all that midnight oil could be wasted.

Oh well.

[koti]

8 hours ago, Arete said:

 

I have a friend who has Klinefelter's syndrome and identifies a non-binary, using they/them pronouns. Coincidentally, they are not a bored, agenda driven university student in a safe space. 

And I support your friend all the way, they have every right to identify as non binary because they have a genetic condition which they were born with. Yesterday I went for a drink to my gay neighbour and his partner to talk about this. In short they both think that the fight which the gay community went through in the US and Europe in the last few decades is being undermined right now. 
 

This is the n’th time you use the same strawman in this thread - „my friend has Kinefelters syndrome therefore agenda driven people who have no genetic conditions are right”

[koti]

Kathleen Stock - lesbian and feminist, professor at university of Sussex getting fired by the loving student militia who fight for inclusion. Just like Dave Chappele’s transgender friend who had his back on twitter hung herself because the radical LGBTQ community drove her to suicide. MigL mentioned that the loving, inclusive community in this thread displays hypocrisy by cherry picking who deseves what as a tribunal of what is considered acceptable or not towards me who expresses a view.

On the other hand, in the light of what is happening in Academia right now (the below clip) I can understand why @CharonY , @Arete and a few others are behaving the way they are behaving. Fortunately I own my own business and I don't have do adhere as much to the  ideological ridiculousness as some others do. I can certainly express my views without risking too much (except being driven out from this thread or site)

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by koti

[StringJunky]

32 minutes ago, koti said:

Kathleen Stock - lesbian and feminist, professor at university of Sussex getting fired by the loving student militia who fight for inclusion. Just like Dave Chappele’s transgender friend who had his back on twitter hung herself because the radical LGBTQ community drove her to suicide. MigL mentioned that the loving, inclusive community in this thread displays hypocrisy by cherry picking who deseves what as a tribunal of what is considered acceptable or not towards me who expresses a view.

 

She's an example of the uncomfortable bedfellows that LGBQT's make that I mentioned earlier, and they are not actually as monolithic and united as the 'LGBQT' label suggests. Messy world. This is a woman kicking back about men who are invading her gender space. Science is against her. She's out of her depth and shouldn't have entered the national debate. She has been treated harshly but one should be aware of the consequences when sticking ones neck out.

Edited November 6, 2021 by StringJunky

[koti]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

She's an example of the uncomfortable bedfellows that LGBQT's make that I mentioned earlier, and they are not actually as monolithic as the 'LGBQT' label suggests

Sure Stringy, lets see how many likes you get on this post. I'll keep my fingers crossed for as many as possible since it obviously means something to you.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, koti said:

Sure Stringy, lets see how many likes you get on this post. I'll keep my fingers crossed for as many as possible since it obviously means something to you.

Yes mate, I find myself in a strange position, with agreeing and disagreeing in the same thread with posters I argue with on a contentious  subject. Where possible, I endeavour to follow the science. The trouble with Stock is that she holds a vocally fixed philosophical position, which is odd because she's a philosophy professor. I expect a fair degree of objective detachment from a person at that level.

Edited November 6, 2021 by StringJunky

[koti]

53 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The trouble with Stock is that she holds a vocally fixed philosophical position, which is odd because she's a philosophy professor. I expect a fair degree of objective detachment from a person at that level.

Exactly, she would have kept her job and avoided a witch hunt if she had KEPT her mouth SHUT. A lesbian feminist professor, it’s beyond grotesque and this is exactly what the crux of Jordan Petersons argument is (mine and MigL’s too) 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I expect a fair degree of objective detachment from a person at that level.

Why? Same reason you expect a psychology professor not to take a fixed position on human interaction? Academics are as prone to rigid ideology and territorial aggression as other people; perhaps more than most, since their range is so small.

Like you said, messy world. Messy psyches. Messy social issues.

Somebody we've only heard about fourth-hand is reported by somebody else we've never met to have committed suicide [directly and exclusively] because people we don't know anything about beyond the label put on them by the reporter had written mean things we didn't read. Which should be sufficient to convince us that somebody entirely different whom we never met, in another country, not only isn't entitled to be referred-to by a simple one-syllable pronoun of their choice, because we don't know whether they're spoiled or unable to bear children, but requiring the use of that word in a university setting amounts to persecution - not of the person who makes the request, but of the person who vilifies it from a huge, very public platform. ?

Edited November 6, 2021 by Peterkin
punctuation, mainly

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Exactly, she would have kept her job and avoided a witch hunt if she had KEPT her mouth SHUT. A lesbian feminist professor, it’s beyond grotesque and this is exactly what the crux of Jordan Petersons argument is (mine and MigL’s too) 

It's not her mouth that counts... Are there any women here...

[Arete]

5 hours ago, koti said:

This is the n’th time you use the same strawman in this thread - „my friend has Kinefelters syndrome therefore agenda driven people who have no genetic conditions are right”

Well there's this: 

13 hours ago, Arete said:

Further, twin studies and hormone studies have confirmed a genetic basis for transgenderism even in non-intersex, trans identifying individuals.

Several pages back you were arguing against the prevalence of intersex individuals. Now you're excluding "real" transgender people for your argument to try and give it some form of credibility, which is problematic; 

1. You're missing the point that the grey area between sexes is well, grey and not easily classifiable.

2. Why do YOU get to decide who's a "real" transgender person and who is not? 

3. How are you going to determine who is "legitimately" non-binary, and who isn't? Does a hormonal imbalance count? What about if one is XX/XY, but gonadally intersex? What about if their external appearance is gender conforming? What if the underlying genetic basis of someone's gender mismatch is not karyotypic variation? What if the determinant is developmentally triggered epigenetics? Even if it was down to environmental response, why would/wouldn't that be legitimate? 

4. So, if there are "legitimate" and "fake" non-binary people how are you going to tell? Ask them to drop their pants for inspection? Provide you blood tests in triplicate? A print out of genetic test results? 

My position is not determined by my institutional conditioning as your appeal to motive fallacy would suggest (incidentally, the same argument is used by climate change deniers and antivaxxers), but by my understanding of biology. Biology is messy. Exceptions to human derived, arbitrary categories universally exist. The existence of transgender and non-binary humans is entirely unsurprising to me and entirely uncontroversial. If people can be legally protected from discrimination because they believe in magic underpants, then gender identity should be protected too. 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Arete