Jordan Peterson vs. Feminists, SJW, Biology Deniers, Bioware fanboi/gurl/non-binary/non-he/non-she/xe/xi/ze/zi/it/whatever

[redneckdevil]

 

And what we think now is new information may very well be proven wrong in 5-10 years.

So are we just sitting around bad mouthing misinformed people when in some years, we are proven to be misinformed as well?

If that's your takeaway from my posts...maybe a TL;DR version will be better: Keep an open mind at all times regarding all matters.

I think I have an open mind

[Valsuelm]

The old thread title was better....

 

This new one is too bloated, and other meh things.

[Oerwinde]

 

All those years in Biology class and being taught only two genders. Damn it, I was lied to.

I have been corrected - Gender != Sex (apparently)

They are trying to say sex is a spectrum now too.

 

I just think it's kind of odd for sex or gender to considered a spectrum when 99.7% of people are part of the classical binary. Usually you would consider the other 0.3% an aberration no?

[Ben No.3]

 

 

All those years in Biology class and being taught only two genders. Damn it, I was lied to.

I have been corrected - Gender != Sex (apparently)

They are trying to say sex is a spectrum now too.

 

I just think it's kind of odd for sex or gender to considered a spectrum when 99.7% of people are part of the classical binary. Usually you would consider the other 0.3% an aberration no?

Well, it used to be a philosophical debate (regarding gender). To quote from Simone de Beauvoir, whom I think is safe to say is one the most important feminist figures, "one is not born a woman, one becomes a woman", the implication of course being that what we understand as "femininity" is only a social role rather than an "actual" way of behaviour.

Though I like another quote from her that I think some feminists should think about more frequently: "To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue nonetheless to exist for him also: mutually recognising each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other. The reciprocity of their relations will not do away with the miracles – desire, possession, love, dream, adventure – worked by the division of human beings into two separate categories; and the words that move us – giving, conquering, uniting – will not lose their meaning."

Edited May 2, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Chilloutman]

Big words with little meaning. Just look at any episode of naked and afraid

[Zoraptor]

 

They are trying to say sex is a spectrum now too.

 

I just think it's kind of odd for sex or gender to considered a spectrum when 99.7% of people are part of the classical binary. Usually you would consider the other 0.3% an aberration no?

 

 

You don't usually use words like 'mutant' or 'aberration' when describing people, as they tend to be- pointlessly- offended if you do. You can call other species those sorts of things as much as you like though, as they don't get offended or are very good at hiding it.

 

A hard binary approach to gender/ sex is generally a consequence of how biology is taught in schools and specifically that a genome is a blueprint. If the blueprints say that someone has an XX pairing then they are a woman, and if they have an XY they are a man- and that is that barring genetic disorders and even with those there is a hard genetic basis. But genomes are not like blueprints, or at least not like blueprints that get followed religiously. It's more like a whole bunch of competing blueprints where putting in a sink may result in the wallpaper changing colour or a wall disappearing. You can, by phenotype at least, turn a man into a woman or vice versa with hormones, and someone with a natural disorder of that type may grow up as the 'wrong' sex. And that is not a trivial case like dying your hair to change your genetically mandated hair colour, it's an actual physical and psychological change.

[Namutree]

The word 'objectification' amuses me. An object is something that is visible and can be touched. So unless women are all ghosts until the patriarchy de-ghosts them then they are always objects and 'objectification' isn't a thing.

[Ben No.3]

The word 'objectification' amuses me. An object is something that is visible and can be touched. So unless women are all ghosts until the patriarchy de-ghosts them then they are always objects and 'objectification' isn't a thing.

I love my girlfriend.

 

I am objectifying "my girlfriend".

 

[Namutree]

 

The word 'objectification' amuses me. An object is something that is visible and can be touched. So unless women are all ghosts until the patriarchy de-ghosts them then they are always objects and 'objectification' isn't a thing.

I love my girlfriend.

 

I am objectifying "my girlfriend".

 

 

Just to be clear. I use blue text when I'm just screwing around. I realize objectification isn't about de-ghosting people.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

The word 'objectification' amuses me. An object is something that is visible and can be touched. So unless women are all ghosts until the patriarchy de-ghosts them then they are always objects and 'objectification' isn't a thing.

I love my girlfriend.

 

I am objectifying "my girlfriend".

 

 

Just to be clear. I use blue text when I'm just screwing around. I realize objectification isn't about de-ghosting people.

 

Yeah that's something else all together.

 

 

 

[Namutree]

 

 

 

The word 'objectification' amuses me. An object is something that is visible and can be touched. So unless women are all ghosts until the patriarchy de-ghosts them then they are always objects and 'objectification' isn't a thing.

I love my girlfriend.

 

I am objectifying "my girlfriend".

 

 

Just to be clear. I use blue text when I'm just screwing around. I realize objectification isn't about de-ghosting people.

 

Yeah that's something else all together.

 

 

 

That's probably clever, but I don't get it. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

The word 'objectification' amuses me. An object is something that is visible and can be touched. So unless women are all ghosts until the patriarchy de-ghosts them then they are always objects and 'objectification' isn't a thing.

I love my girlfriend.

 

I am objectifying "my girlfriend".

 

 

Just to be clear. I use blue text when I'm just screwing around. I realize objectification isn't about de-ghosting people.

 

Yeah that's something else all together.

 

 

 

That's probably clever, but I don't get it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own

[Ben No.3]

 

 

The word 'objectification' amuses me. An object is something that is visible and can be touched. So unless women are all ghosts until the patriarchy de-ghosts them then they are always objects and 'objectification' isn't a thing.

I love my girlfriend.

 

I am objectifying "my girlfriend".

 

Just to be clear. I use blue text when I'm just screwing around. I realize objectification isn't about de-ghosting people.

It's a joke.

 

"my girlfriend" is the object (in the sense of grammar) of the sentence "I love my girlfriend", so you could say I am objectifying "my girlfriend" (again, in a grammatical sense). Which is why the apostrophes in "my girlfriend" are there... they indicate that I am referring to the phrase "my girlfriend" rather than to my girlfriend herself. If I would be saying that I actually objectify my girlfriend, I wouldn't use apostrophes.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Gorgon]

Does that work for indirect objects. I think they are too far removed from the subject, in grammatical terms.

[Gorgon]

Joe was objectified by my girlfriend. 

[injurai]

My first contact with him was a discussion on philosophy of mind with his colleague. That public confrontation which went somewhat viral had just happened a week prior, which is probably why this older video got posted. I only learned of the pronoun debacle after first watching some of his older material. My first impressions of him were actually quite high, his lectures and work were gripping. Of course some of the stuff I lack the expertise to make a value judgment one. But I'd say it was fascinating non the less.

 

As for the pronoun stuff. I think there are a lot facets surrounding the entirety of the publics debate around it which could deem bike-shedding (look it up if you don't know.) I think there is some degree of redefining language going on that is unhelpful. Which causes confusion. Then we have this whole issue of micro-aggressions. I agree they exist, we call them slights, and they've existed since forever. At the same time you shouldn't project intention onto someone falsely. I certainly can't understand the mental gymnastics that people do to justify actually aggression to counter perceived and projected slights. Then you also have the jury still out on lots of topics relating to the brain. So many sciences based claims based on how gender works seems premature. Many people with non-traditional gender identities seem to base them off of a theory of how gender works, and debating that underlying theory is taken as an attack on there identity. Which it shouldn't be. I wish the discussion revolved more about why we should extend human decency to people even though gender isn't fully understood. I wish the theory on what constitutes identity was less absolutist and people were more comfortable saying I'm not sure what my identity is instead of having to first find it, justify it on the basis of some scientific model, then politically defend that model as a means of guarding ones own identity. But this is not unique to gender, people do this will all forms of faith, science, and politics.

 

In lieu of a lot of this, I feel Peterson get's some things right. Namely people shouldn't be compelled to use any arbitrary preferred pronoun, but I think using the appropriate he/she or singular-they is important. Repeated refusal not to can be seen as harassment. Most people change their fashion to signal how they lean, so it's not like you have to remember too hard. If singular-neutral-they still isn't good enough for you, then I'm sorry but you are being unreasonable. But I don't think it's that many people really thinking that. Even if the law is nominally flawed, there is so much badly written law out there that never get's upheld, I doubt it's a problem. The problem tends to lie in how people behave, now in how the law promises people will behave. Further I don't understand why Jordan doesn't offer to help flesh out the law and improve the grammar and semantics in ally with these people, instead of having to take it to a public shame match. But I guess he gets his kicks being a public intellectual...

 

 

I'm certainly not convinced by all he says. He draws an interesting mix of liberals who are sick of shoddy appeals to emotions by their kin, and conservatives looking for a secular justification for holding onto traditional faith. Just given his age and time in the academic world, he's considerably more coherent than your average person (along a certain variable, b/c he can also devolve.) He knows how to more properly engage in a debate, given his near reverence of the logos it's no wonder. Sometimes I feel he is trying hard to live out the archetype of the martyr, or maybe the ubermensch.

 

I agree there is a lot of perhaps truthful wisdom on the human condition that is millennia old. I'm not so sure I agree with him that we should continue to uphold that knowledge via the use of traditional symbolism and religious figurehood. I'm all for better interpreting the mindsets of the past. At any rate he seems correct on enough and studied on enough to merit listening to at least to suss out the meaningful bits yourself, but he also seems like he is his own worst enemy. No wonder because he believes in striking a perfect balance of chaos and order.

[Volourn]

"Repeated refusal not to can be seen as harassment"

 

L0L that is such a low bar to set for 'harassment'.

 

That be like if someone refused to call you by your 'chosen' name and you considered that harssment. RIDICULOUS.

 

BUT, HEY, 2017.    The feels  are easy to hurt.

[injurai]

I don't think that example similar at all. A name is just a name, pronouns denominate belonging to some category. They generalize over that category. So if someone keeps calling you something that you're not, that would be annoying. Imagine someone incessantly calls you a ballerina. In one case it's because your a professional soccer player who keeps feigning injuries, the other is because your the smallest most effeminate guy on the soccer team. Repeated use in the latter case could be considered harassment. Especially if the person knows you don't like it. The former is just mocking your behavior.

 

Forget about what legally such repeated behavior should be called. It's certainly something we would call not nice. In a high school setting we'd call it bullying, professional we'd might call it harassment.

 

Pronouns are both used to denominate the category of sex and gender. The former being concrete and very well defined, and the later I personally believe poorly and inconsistently defined. So if someone uses pronouns to denominate sex, then end up confronted by a co-worker or student who expects them use to denominate gender in relation to themselves, you could find yourself at an impasse. Personally I'd rather have people acknowledge pronouns can be used either way and not restrict themselves to denoting just sex or just gender. As long as the person doesn't have to reach for pronouns beyond he/she/they when denoting gender. Doing that, I feel, as a civil courtesy seems like it nets you the trade off that you can still debate what gender or self-identity really is at the neurological level, rather than having the science per-codified into law. You don't protect people by harassment by defining what gender identity is. Instead you extend courtesy. At that point you do no wrong to investigate, debate, or challenge the nature of gender, and those who are upset have no grounds to claim they are personally attacked. Just like flat-Earthers can't claim discrimination because people don't agree with their belief of the world.

 

I'll throw the bone though, that there are a non-negligible amount of people in the campus setting who will throw around obscure pronouns at faculty an students in order to cultivate oppressive experiences with which to virtue protest by. I'm really not trying to coddle or level with those people. Part of the reason I have my approach to pronouns as I do is that I think it's important to cultivate an attitude that nips their game in the bud, and to disarm them. At the same time taking the higher ground and not devolving to any form of bigotry against identity. I'm really more concerned with keeping the English language robust and keeping open a free debate over the actually nature of things. Because I don't think people really know what their identity truly is, not enough to make a claim on how identity works. But I also think they are free to explore to find how they want to live, whether it's to their detriment or benefit.

[Volourn]

"A name is just a name"

 

Tell that to Muhammed Ali.

 

Tell that to a transgender person.

 

Seriously, you are just spamming silliness. You talk about identity yet ignore the fact that names are  a  part of identity.

[Malcador]

"Repeated refusal not to can be seen as harassment"

 

L0L that is such a low bar to set for 'harassment'.

 

That be like if someone refused to call you by your 'chosen' name and you considered that harssment. RIDICULOUS.

 

BUT, HEY, 2017. The feels are easy to hurt.

So if someone calls you Nigel at work, you wouldn't eventually complain ?

[Volourn]

Define 'complain'. Complain as in I tell him to stop or complain that I sue him for a billion dolalrs for harassment and press criminal charges type of complain?

 

Worst case, I start misnaming him too.   Somone thinking they can troll me by calling me by another name picked the wrong target. L0L

[Malcador]

Complain as report it as harassment, I had meant.

[Volourn]

Like I waste my time reporting silly people miscalling me a different name. L0L I am no SJW Nazi.

[Malcador]

Well, you could probably get the person canned that way, so ultimate victory there, heh. But at most work places that kind of crap behaviour would pass as harassment.

[Volourn]

That's what SJW nazis do. Me? I just return the favor.  And, i win because I ain't human and have no feelz.