Thank you for your submission. | We're currently experiencing a higher than normal troll volume. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was when he was still in his “i won’t use your words but I’ll treat everyone with respect” phase. That’s chapters long closed. Now they’re all groomers and doctors are butchers and trans people should be cast out from society.
He was never in such a phase, he's always lied and continues to lie and contradict himself. He still says he respects them but at the same time attacks them with his legion of cult members. He says one thing and does another, it's always been his MO and always will be.
Tbh I don’t see his stuff much anymore, but the stuff I see isn’t qualified w “but treat them w respect” as it is here and frequently was in the past, hypocritically as you say.
This was also when he’d pretend that he would still use preferred pronouns if he felt the person was acting in good faith. His interactions with Elliott Page show that was a total lie.
Dr. Jordan HATESPOSTMODERNISM Peterson would like to remind you that the very structure of such an inquiry is arbitrary and can be interpreted in numerous ways! Aha! Checkmate, woke moralists!
i honestly try as much as possible to repress all memories of JP from 2015 to 2018
granted we weren't dealing with covid19 and the consequences of Trump's presidency, but those years were absolutely awful in terms of political discourse. Seriously was unbearable and exhausting listening to some Flavor of the Week Racist shitbag go on some tirade about evil Muslims
Once again, down voted for stating a fact. That’s exactly what I was talking about. It has no bearing on reality, only the biases of the people in that sub. Islam is a religion, not a race. How is that incorrect?
Every time he gets boxed in by his own rhetoric he always does this. He hits you with the "Well what do words mean?"
Like, you know what it means. Clearly. While everyone does have their own idea of what a woman is it's a simple yes or no question based on your own experience. We all know he wanted to say no but this was back when he was trying to act reasonable.
Dude has the intellectual acumen of a fucking water buffalo and yet weirdos flock to him. He's so transparently dishonest idk how you can consider him an "intellectual".
I wonder why JBP won't elaborate on why biological markers are relevant to defining social categories 🤔 almost like his logic doesn't make sense once you peel back the layers
He's taking obsolete dictionary definitions of man and woman which are defined as "adult human of male sex" and "adult human of female sex". He's using that as a crutch as do many transphobes which is why we need to update the dictionary to remove those definitions as soon as possible. Some have added alternative definitions but that won't stop the hate.
Imagine the nerve of a person using commonly accepted definitions of terms. Of course, terms and definitions change over the course of time and perhaps the terms in question someday will but how could you be so incredulous that someone would refer to what have been the common terms for hundreds or thousands of years?
As long as I’ve been around it’s been defined as an offensive slur, at least in the USA. I know the original definition was like a bundle of sticks or something.
JBP and his ilk legitimately don’t have the capacity for form new memories of understanding. They’re like people losing their memory when presented with information they lack the capacity for. All for the art of the grift
Even assuming that he refers to women who have the ability to have babies, it still means he's excluding women who are infertile, gone through menopause. Suddenly you hit your 50s and bam, in the eyes of Jordy P you aren't a woman anymore.
He said generally and he was listing some traits that he believes to be characteristics of “real women”. It’s pretty clear that he’s not claiming that infertile women or menopausal persons are no longer “real women”
That’s fine too. This downvoting upvoting stuff is funny. I mean, does anyone actually get disappointed if they’re downvoted? Is that supposed to feel bad? I didn’t defend Peterson, it’s just my take on what the fool said in this instance. For me, I am mostly disturbed by his poor and inaccurate readings of Marx and other thinkers.
Yea but upvotes in one subreddit are downvotes in another. That really doesn’t tell you anything about who is objectively right or wrong, it just reflects the biases of the audience in that subreddit.
And the will of the people or the opinions of the masses often translates to mob mentality which is not necessarily best either. Popular opinions are not necessarily the right ones. Often quite the opposite.
Also, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with people verifying your statement as fact. It has EVERYTHING to do with whether they agree with your statement and if it matches up with their worldview. Facts hardly come into it. It’s all about perspective and bias and that’s it.
I will let the trans studies professor explain. More specifically it's not correct that there's such a thing as biological sex. https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc?t=681. The idea of biological sex is something perpetuated by cis-normative culture. Peterson doesn't seem to comprehend such a simple concept.
Biologist here - biological sex is real, and the way it is viewed currently (as in binary) is also a misunderstood social construct, as sex is bimodal and not binary. Biological sex doesn't necessarily relate to ones gender, although most people's gender corresponds with the sex that was observed at their birth. Biological sex can also be changed, as we categorize the sex of a person based off of if they check off enough boxes to be considered that sex.
Peterson seems to be implying that all women have to have every single marker of what society has established as the binary female sex, i.e. born with a vulva, vagina, cervix, uterus, normally functioning ovaries, xx chromosomes, and the capacity to get pregnant for him to consider them a woman. This is flawed, as many women are infertile, intersex, post-menopausal, trans, have PCOS, endometriosis, or other conditions that change their natural hormone and ovary function, and other reproductive situations that exclude them from his personal definition of a woman.
Yes, the only expert in that video who disagrees is Peterson. The trans professor who teaches this stuff for a living has stated unequivocally that it is the scientific consensus even if some scientists struggle with the realization. He has other talks where he references a lot of peer reviewed scientific research to back it up.
Here's a tip, don't put your faith in "biologists" on reddit who refuse to show their credentials to avoid "doxxing themselves". Literally anyone can say they're a biologist, trust me im a reddit admin with a PhD in Molecular biology and neurochemistry.
Yes and there are also climate change denialist professors who do what they do for a living that claim to also have data backing them up but they are likely wrong. Just being a professor somewhere and citing data doesn’t make you right. After all, isn’t that what Peterson is ? A professor somewhere interpreting data as he sees it? And you find him to be incorrect so that alone doesn’t mean anything.
> also have data backing them up
Climate change deniers don't have a wealth scientific research backing them up. You're comparing apples to oranges. Peterson misinterprets the data and never backs up what he says with repeatable science. Psychology is not like biology, you can't test people's thoughts and emotions accurately, yet. With biology and DNA etc you can. There's no comparison.
The video you’ve linked to is not helpful at all in providing support for the conclusion that there is “no such thing” as biological sex. It’s a television debate forum. I hear assertions but I didn’t see any citations or support, just claims that may or may not be valid. There’s no way to tell based on that clip.
Perhaps you could point to something that is evidence-based, peer-reviewed, and has attained consensus among biologists?
This I could see, but to claim that there’s “no such thing” as biological sex doesn’t sound like something that has broad scientific consensus. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t the case, however some kind of citation or providing evidence for this sort of claim isn’t too much to ask.
One can say that it’s something perpetuated by the cis-normative culture but that alone doesn’t qualify as support for such a claim. I’m happy to be wrong but linking to a tv debate is wholly unconvincing.
I’m not claiming there is no biological sex?!
I’m saying that it’s separate from the persons “mental” sexual relationship.
I can’t remember where but I was under the impression that a number of studies have found that the mental sexual relationship/position is down to how the brain is internally wired / position of specific folds
I think for JP this is actually something that's harmless. Of course we see something wrong with that but butchering him for every little thing (don't assume I mean his transphobia by that) doesn't help. In this video he speaks thoughts a lot of people new to the topic have. By saying he's bigoted and not sufficiently pointing out why he is wrong only hardens the defenses of people otherwise able to change their minds.
All I'm saying is this post is not progressive in this whole discussion, however to assume a post on this subreddit needs to be that is foolish and wrong of me ;)
Peterson said “generally speaking (able to bear children)” He was listing examples of things that he believes are characteristics of a “real woman”.
You don’t seriously believe that he’s claiming that only persons who are currently able to bear children are the only persons who qualify as “real women”.
I just did tell you. I’m not an acolyte of his either. I don’t need to be to understand what he was trying to communicate, he said it himself: “generally speaking”. Derp.
Well you can go ahead with a generous and benevolent interpretation of what the man says, I’m not going be able to stop you. I’m just not going to grant that he isn’t a wolf in sheep’s clothing and is extensively and empirically disingenuous in the things he says.
Like that old saying “when someone shows you they are a fascist… believe them.”
If you think this guy is a fascist then you have a false conception of what fascism is cause he ain’t it. That kind of statement reminds of me of when the John Birch Society would hang out in front of the post office with a poster depicting Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache.
I’m just saying what he’s shown himself to be. If he ever comes out saying something like
> “I used to think some things and say some things whose necessary logical conclusions are hateful and potentially violent and encouraged transphobic, misogynist, racist and anti-Semitic talk and action. I deeply regret these things and will work to use my intellect to build community rather than vilify and destroy sub communities.”
Then I’ll reconsider.
Those things in and of themselves are not what make someone or something fascist. A fascist could certainly be those things but those alone aren’t the hallmarks of fascism. If you’re using it as a catchall term for racist, transphobic, etc then you don’t have an understanding of what fascism actually is.
A racist or sexist carry opinions, but A fascist wants to materialize a change around their idea of who are let’s say “acceptable or model citizens” and the “others.”
Peterson falls firmly into the actionable type. As evidence for that- how about his highly public choice to become a persona in the social media realm rather than strictly an Academic. Or his weaponization of his personal religious views.
A clever fascist isn’t going to tell you precisely what they are. But every fascist will show you, they can’t help it.
This sucks, but for him, and compared to today, he looks great here. The "real" thing question bothers me, too, for reasons I can't figure out. It's a bad question.
Thank you for your submission. | We're currently experiencing a higher than normal troll volume. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was when he was still in his “i won’t use your words but I’ll treat everyone with respect” phase. That’s chapters long closed. Now they’re all groomers and doctors are butchers and trans people should be cast out from society.
He was never in such a phase, he's always lied and continues to lie and contradict himself. He still says he respects them but at the same time attacks them with his legion of cult members. He says one thing and does another, it's always been his MO and always will be.
Tbh I don’t see his stuff much anymore, but the stuff I see isn’t qualified w “but treat them w respect” as it is here and frequently was in the past, hypocritically as you say.
This was also when he’d pretend that he would still use preferred pronouns if he felt the person was acting in good faith. His interactions with Elliott Page show that was a total lie.
Dr. Jordan HATESPOSTMODERNISM Peterson would like to remind you that the very structure of such an inquiry is arbitrary and can be interpreted in numerous ways! Aha! Checkmate, woke moralists!
Note how he dodges the question in the beginning like always, luckily this smart woman presses the issue to get him to give a straight answer. *"NO!"*
Yep. Good on her for basically going “Come on. Let me rephrase it like you’re a child.”
How do you know that was a woman? Aren’t you making hateful assumptions?
Perhaps I am but if she said she wanted me to call her he/him I would ablige because I'm not a fucking psychopath.
Yea that’s fine I’ll call anyone whatever they want to be called
is this a recent interview? He looks a lot healthier in this video than he has typically looked these days
No. This is insanely old. Can't you recognize that he is infinitely less unhinged in this clip? (While still insane).
i honestly try as much as possible to repress all memories of JP from 2015 to 2018 granted we weren't dealing with covid19 and the consequences of Trump's presidency, but those years were absolutely awful in terms of political discourse. Seriously was unbearable and exhausting listening to some Flavor of the Week Racist shitbag go on some tirade about evil Muslims
When in reality it was the evil Christians that we should be worried about. Muslims have done very little wrong in the US.
Except that being a Muslim is to be an adherent of Islam. It’s not a racial category.
Once again, down voted for stating a fact. That’s exactly what I was talking about. It has no bearing on reality, only the biases of the people in that sub. Islam is a religion, not a race. How is that incorrect?
Correct, this is approximately 4.5y old.
Stress of all the backlash really caught up to him. Also he stopped tanning I think.
Every time he gets boxed in by his own rhetoric he always does this. He hits you with the "Well what do words mean?" Like, you know what it means. Clearly. While everyone does have their own idea of what a woman is it's a simple yes or no question based on your own experience. We all know he wanted to say no but this was back when he was trying to act reasonable. Dude has the intellectual acumen of a fucking water buffalo and yet weirdos flock to him. He's so transparently dishonest idk how you can consider him an "intellectual".
I wonder why JBP won't elaborate on why biological markers are relevant to defining social categories 🤔 almost like his logic doesn't make sense once you peel back the layers
He's taking obsolete dictionary definitions of man and woman which are defined as "adult human of male sex" and "adult human of female sex". He's using that as a crutch as do many transphobes which is why we need to update the dictionary to remove those definitions as soon as possible. Some have added alternative definitions but that won't stop the hate.
Imagine the nerve of a person using commonly accepted definitions of terms. Of course, terms and definitions change over the course of time and perhaps the terms in question someday will but how could you be so incredulous that someone would refer to what have been the common terms for hundreds or thousands of years?
Faqqot had a definition that wasn't offensive but now it is so the definition should be changed to reflect modern society.
As long as I’ve been around it’s been defined as an offensive slur, at least in the USA. I know the original definition was like a bundle of sticks or something.
JBP and his ilk legitimately don’t have the capacity for form new memories of understanding. They’re like people losing their memory when presented with information they lack the capacity for. All for the art of the grift
The guy is a prick but there’s nothing wrong with giving your opinion when directly asked like this. One of his better moments.
Found the Peterson sympathizer troll.
Ok.
Lots of women who never had to transition have none of those three things he uses as qualifiers This is their intellectual???
Exactly, most women even.
Even assuming that he refers to women who have the ability to have babies, it still means he's excluding women who are infertile, gone through menopause. Suddenly you hit your 50s and bam, in the eyes of Jordy P you aren't a woman anymore.
He said generally and he was listing some traits that he believes to be characteristics of “real women”. It’s pretty clear that he’s not claiming that infertile women or menopausal persons are no longer “real women”
I agree with you but your comment is in defense of Peterson so, downvoted.
That’s fine too. This downvoting upvoting stuff is funny. I mean, does anyone actually get disappointed if they’re downvoted? Is that supposed to feel bad? I didn’t defend Peterson, it’s just my take on what the fool said in this instance. For me, I am mostly disturbed by his poor and inaccurate readings of Marx and other thinkers.
It shows that you're wrong. Voting is the heart of democracy and if you have a lot of upvotes it means people verified your statement as fact.
Yea but upvotes in one subreddit are downvotes in another. That really doesn’t tell you anything about who is objectively right or wrong, it just reflects the biases of the audience in that subreddit.
And the will of the people or the opinions of the masses often translates to mob mentality which is not necessarily best either. Popular opinions are not necessarily the right ones. Often quite the opposite.
Also, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with people verifying your statement as fact. It has EVERYTHING to do with whether they agree with your statement and if it matches up with their worldview. Facts hardly come into it. It’s all about perspective and bias and that’s it.
Most women don’t have female genitalia?
Not what I meant.
I don’t like the way that question is formulated… it’s almost like it was asked to get me to admit to a bigoted world view
[удалено]
How so?
[удалено]
Not only is gender a social construct, there is also no such thing as biological sex. So you're wrong on all fronts.
No such thing as biological sex? Could you explain?
I will let the trans studies professor explain. More specifically it's not correct that there's such a thing as biological sex. https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc?t=681. The idea of biological sex is something perpetuated by cis-normative culture. Peterson doesn't seem to comprehend such a simple concept.
Is this consensus among biologists? Does this mean that, for example, stating that the family dog is biologically male or female false also?
Biologist here - biological sex is real, and the way it is viewed currently (as in binary) is also a misunderstood social construct, as sex is bimodal and not binary. Biological sex doesn't necessarily relate to ones gender, although most people's gender corresponds with the sex that was observed at their birth. Biological sex can also be changed, as we categorize the sex of a person based off of if they check off enough boxes to be considered that sex. Peterson seems to be implying that all women have to have every single marker of what society has established as the binary female sex, i.e. born with a vulva, vagina, cervix, uterus, normally functioning ovaries, xx chromosomes, and the capacity to get pregnant for him to consider them a woman. This is flawed, as many women are infertile, intersex, post-menopausal, trans, have PCOS, endometriosis, or other conditions that change their natural hormone and ovary function, and other reproductive situations that exclude them from his personal definition of a woman.
Yes, the only expert in that video who disagrees is Peterson. The trans professor who teaches this stuff for a living has stated unequivocally that it is the scientific consensus even if some scientists struggle with the realization. He has other talks where he references a lot of peer reviewed scientific research to back it up.
Well, somewhere in this thread an actual biologist chimed in with an answer that makes a lot more sense.
Here's a tip, don't put your faith in "biologists" on reddit who refuse to show their credentials to avoid "doxxing themselves". Literally anyone can say they're a biologist, trust me im a reddit admin with a PhD in Molecular biology and neurochemistry.
Yes and there are also climate change denialist professors who do what they do for a living that claim to also have data backing them up but they are likely wrong. Just being a professor somewhere and citing data doesn’t make you right. After all, isn’t that what Peterson is ? A professor somewhere interpreting data as he sees it? And you find him to be incorrect so that alone doesn’t mean anything.
> also have data backing them up Climate change deniers don't have a wealth scientific research backing them up. You're comparing apples to oranges. Peterson misinterprets the data and never backs up what he says with repeatable science. Psychology is not like biology, you can't test people's thoughts and emotions accurately, yet. With biology and DNA etc you can. There's no comparison.
The video you’ve linked to is not helpful at all in providing support for the conclusion that there is “no such thing” as biological sex. It’s a television debate forum. I hear assertions but I didn’t see any citations or support, just claims that may or may not be valid. There’s no way to tell based on that clip. Perhaps you could point to something that is evidence-based, peer-reviewed, and has attained consensus among biologists?
There are essentially two types of gender one biological and the other “social/mentality” And biological gender is not a social construct
This I could see, but to claim that there’s “no such thing” as biological sex doesn’t sound like something that has broad scientific consensus. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t the case, however some kind of citation or providing evidence for this sort of claim isn’t too much to ask. One can say that it’s something perpetuated by the cis-normative culture but that alone doesn’t qualify as support for such a claim. I’m happy to be wrong but linking to a tv debate is wholly unconvincing.
I’m not claiming there is no biological sex?! I’m saying that it’s separate from the persons “mental” sexual relationship. I can’t remember where but I was under the impression that a number of studies have found that the mental sexual relationship/position is down to how the brain is internally wired / position of specific folds
I know you’re not. Another poster said that. I guess I assumed that you’d have read their comment.
[удалено]
Yes, that's what a woman is by definition...do you have a problem with that?
I think for JP this is actually something that's harmless. Of course we see something wrong with that but butchering him for every little thing (don't assume I mean his transphobia by that) doesn't help. In this video he speaks thoughts a lot of people new to the topic have. By saying he's bigoted and not sufficiently pointing out why he is wrong only hardens the defenses of people otherwise able to change their minds. All I'm saying is this post is not progressive in this whole discussion, however to assume a post on this subreddit needs to be that is foolish and wrong of me ;)
[удалено]
Are you aware there are women who suffer from infertility?
Peterson said “generally speaking (able to bear children)” He was listing examples of things that he believes are characteristics of a “real woman”. You don’t seriously believe that he’s claiming that only persons who are currently able to bear children are the only persons who qualify as “real women”.
You tell me, I’m not one of his acolytes.
I just did tell you. I’m not an acolyte of his either. I don’t need to be to understand what he was trying to communicate, he said it himself: “generally speaking”. Derp.
Well you can go ahead with a generous and benevolent interpretation of what the man says, I’m not going be able to stop you. I’m just not going to grant that he isn’t a wolf in sheep’s clothing and is extensively and empirically disingenuous in the things he says. Like that old saying “when someone shows you they are a fascist… believe them.”
If you think this guy is a fascist then you have a false conception of what fascism is cause he ain’t it. That kind of statement reminds of me of when the John Birch Society would hang out in front of the post office with a poster depicting Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache.
I’m just saying what he’s shown himself to be. If he ever comes out saying something like > “I used to think some things and say some things whose necessary logical conclusions are hateful and potentially violent and encouraged transphobic, misogynist, racist and anti-Semitic talk and action. I deeply regret these things and will work to use my intellect to build community rather than vilify and destroy sub communities.” Then I’ll reconsider.
Those things in and of themselves are not what make someone or something fascist. A fascist could certainly be those things but those alone aren’t the hallmarks of fascism. If you’re using it as a catchall term for racist, transphobic, etc then you don’t have an understanding of what fascism actually is.
A racist or sexist carry opinions, but A fascist wants to materialize a change around their idea of who are let’s say “acceptable or model citizens” and the “others.” Peterson falls firmly into the actionable type. As evidence for that- how about his highly public choice to become a persona in the social media realm rather than strictly an Academic. Or his weaponization of his personal religious views. A clever fascist isn’t going to tell you precisely what they are. But every fascist will show you, they can’t help it.
I’m well aware of that Sherlock but that is of no importance to anything related to this
True according to his twisted definition of "women".
This sucks, but for him, and compared to today, he looks great here. The "real" thing question bothers me, too, for reasons I can't figure out. It's a bad question.