This is so bizarre to me. I don't understand how the blatantly obvious takeaway from anyone watching this isn't: "this bill is badly worded and needs to be rewritten. As it is now it is ripe for abuse (and based on the HRT records, they WILL abuse it, now or eventually)." ... that's it. It's what all the controversy boils down to.
Yeah that is already happening and they were warned and did not even care. It's we are right you are wrong they talk about respecting people? How respectful of them were they to Peterson? That DR. is doctorate abd he used to teach at Harvard I think too yet they dismiss him as though he's an idiot and he's a prestigious Canadian intellectual.
@@OttoKuus he's talking about a case a transgender woman lost about forcing a beautician to wax her genitals, as she hadn't had bottom surgery. c-16 didn't come into play in this, because a private business can work on whoever they want.
It has long been known that being intelligent in our day and age is a lonely enterprise with only a handful of people to really talk to. Jordan Peterson might be the loneliest man alive.
Well said, sir. Dr. Peterson reminds me of a person who may have arrived here from the future, and is desperately trying to tell everyone what the consequences of their actions are going to be.
We've always had intelligent people in our society and for the most part that's not been the root of the problem; I think in this day and age too many people falsely believe that they're intelligent and that their opinion matters or is far superior to others; the fact that everyone is given an audience regardless of how dull their thought is they'll have an audience and thus the confidence to keep talking [he said confidently whilst addressing an unearned virtual audience]. Village idiots now have the audacity to critique the local scholars; and critiquing is not an issue, the issue is when the scholars rebuttals, the idiots will simply call it "fake news".
As Dr. Peterson points out so many times, in other speeches and lectures, the real changes (differences, more accurately), happen on the fringes of sociological issues.
@@tommym321 Actually, if one were to examine the history of the National Socialist Party (Nazis) of the 1930's and 1940's, at the height of its power, only 10% of the German population were card-carrying members of the party. Psychologically speaking, the greater percentage of humanity has a lot more in common, than not. But, it's at the fringes where the real change takes place.
You're right, the meaning of the last sentence is completely different if you listen to the rest of what he says. most people in the room do not even understand the problem, and if they have now really read the document, they have not yet understood what it means, they do not even understand the problems even after Jordan pointed them out.
@@sandwich675 Identity, as a concept, refers to what remains even when everything else changes. For example, your body replaces itself entirely throughout the years, you're technically, physically, a completely different person every decade. Yet people still know you as you, no matter the decade. Because some things stay. Your name, a lot of your physical features, what you've done, some of your core ideas, including ideas about yourself, your memories, and memories of others about you. Those are what people recognize you by, and constitute your identity ; everything that stays the same. Identity is basically the opposite of "contextual and changing". For example, let's pick a trait that people might think of as an identity ; generous. Now let's pick two individuals ; one that is generous to everyone, and another that is only generous once every few years, if he encounters someone with blue hair, that happens to say the right password, and the password might be different everytime, and any of these criteria might also be different everytime without notice. People would say the first one is generous, the second isn't. Why ? Because the second's behavior is contextual and changing. It's not an identity. The first one is consistent throughout.
We have lost our way as a nation. The debates were once over how to achieve an agreed upon goal. Now it is an argument via an identity politicking olympiad.
Good discussion, if this were relating to merely social behavior, I would suggest that people have a right to change or be mutable if thats their nature. However, one must have certain principles or a code of conduct as a foundation so that no matter how mercurial their nature is they still operate within a framework of principles that govern their behavior. Opinions and ideas can change but your character should be fixed. For instance: 1. No preying on elders or the helpless 2. Protect those that need protecting 3. Even if your an asshole (have integrity). 4. Know when to use violence and never let your emotions lead your actions. 5. Respect others but don't take shit. 6. Be useful to others but not at your expense (otherwise you may become useless). 7. In conflict seek to deescalate, subdue, or disarm first. 8. If you must kill...accept everything that comes with it.
The policy of sexuality and gender being "changing and contextual" written in law would give a future fascist state the legal backing to mandate conversion therapy. How is that not obvious?
It is amazing how these people seem to be unaware of the clear discrepancies in their belief system and the impossibility of its productive and practical implementation.
The argument seems to make sense... but can't I identify as liberal in my youth, and conservative as I age? Or eat meat for fifty years and come to identify as vegetarian? Surely it's simplistic to bring it down to a question of what's entirely biological or entirely non-fixed?
The conversion therapy example I feel didn't quite prove or fit the idea he was laying out. More specifically, my issue is with his example not the idea it was meant to support. Very well argued otherwise.
Curious to know what you mean here? From my estimation, he was making the claim that the legislation is badly worded, so much so that it gives inalienable protections to transgender identity but then argues that gender identity is contextual and socially constructed, and he mentions the conversion therapy example as a way of demonstrating that the legislation lays the foundation for not giving transgenderism a cemented set of rights because the very legislation can also be used to argue for the role of contextually changing someone’s gender identity (conversion therapy).
Can someone explain why gender identity should be based on biology only OR whatever contextual choice only ? Why this is a contradiction ? It could be based on both factors...
We are human beings first and foremost. Focus on treating one another fairly as human beings, and quit obsessing over other attributes (such as gender, race, religion, political affiliation etc), which are personal to the individual. If one wants to identify as a white gay liberal scientologist man in the summer and a black lesbian conservative christian woman in the winter, it's their prerogative; it's no one else's business, and there certainly doesn't need to be _a_ _law_ _compelling_ _speech_ with regards to such individuals.
It obviously depends on how you define gender and sex. I would like to propose: Sex is biological, is therefore innate and fixed. When the Doctor asks you which sex you are, then u can give an answer independent of how you feel (identity wise) and the doc will be able to make a good decision for your body based on all the things that change by sex (like hormones and so forth). Gender can be then well defined as something like a social identity. The social identity can be changed on a whim, in a haphazard way, by combining freely male, female and maybe neither (neutral) characteristics/manifestations. (And if youre not having surgery or smth u wont be able to change if u grow a bear for example or how your hips are looking)
If you open the door for gender fluidity then you have to believe me when I say I feel like I'm mentally deranged, so no accountability for me when I rape, murder or act Heinously. Is still within your definition isn't it?
two things: 1.in your (lets call it objection) you mix three things up and leap from one to another. ->i dont see how mentally deranged could be a state of gender. it is not the same thing to be mentally deranged and identify as e.g. female or male whatever. completely different categories ->i never stated nor implied that if someone is actually mentally deranged or just feels like that, that his or her whatever responsibility is suddenly gone 2.its not actually a objection because youre not objecting to a thing in my definition
Dr Peterson's point here is that even the so called social identities we normally see are not pure social constructions. I'd say even gender is heavily influenced by biological sex, which is exactly the reason it can't be arbitrary such that that you can freely add any characteristic to your gender identity. So basically a social identity is not something that could be altered anytime at your command. If some identity is so malleable that it could be "changed at a whim", that identity would soon lose it's value and soon become fictional
@@theragbag1993 I agree that social identities are heavily influenced by biological sex. My goal was to create a position that is acceptable for both sides. Therefore I wanted to give room for the position as far as social identity can be altered by oneself that it is changing over time due to our influences and decisions. And we maybe should try to push our selfs in a direction, wich is better for the whole society (whatever that exactly means isn't important for this point). As far as I can tell the social-identity-ideologists are trying exactly that, even though not successfully, because they are not sophisticated enough (e.g. see the video above from Dr. Peterson). So i have to admit, that my original comment should be more confined: "Our social identity can be changed by will, but not entirely, because our biological sex has a major influence." But "gender" needs to be that freely defined, because we know empirically, that an average born men can look and act like a woman as far as he can be mistaken for a woman. I am disagreeing therefore with you in that sense, that im still convinced that everyone can add or remove male or female characteristics on a whim (which are addable or removeable of course).
Is there anything in the Canadian bill that criminalized the failure to use people’s preferred gender pronouns. Anyone can show me ? First Session, Forty-second Parliament, 64-65-66 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017 And I agree that government legislation requiring people to use particular pronouns would be an infringement on civil liberties.
@teken 7 Can you show me in the law exactly ? First Session, Forty-second Parliament, 64-65-66 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017 (And I agree that government legislation requiring people to use particular pronouns would be an infringement on civil liberties.) But from your response you don't seem to be able to show me where this is written.
My God. He gets caught with his pants down just before 3 min. mark. When you hear the , 'You knows' getting thrown around instead of a reasoned, empirical evidence-based argument, it's hand-waving at best. At least he was smiling for the audience. What an imbecile. Excellent use of the eyeglasses prop routine...does he think he's Atticus Finch in the courtroom? Irony! And they have pensions...ugh.
It obviously depends on how you define gender and sex. I would like to propose: Sex is biological, is therefore innate and fixed. When the Doctor asks you which sex you are, then u can give an answer independent of how you feel (identity wise) and the doc will be able to make a good decision for your body based on all the things that change by sex (like hormones and so forth). Gender can be then well defined as something like a social identity. The social identity can be changed on a whim, in a haphazard way, by combining freely male, female and maybe neither (neutral) characteristics/manifestations.
this is probably the most views canadian parliament has ever gotten because of Dr Peterson. lol
See, the problem with your thought process here Mr. Peterson, is that it makes sense..
Parliament: "... and we just can't allow that here."
This is so bizarre to me. I don't understand how the blatantly obvious takeaway from anyone watching this isn't: "this bill is badly worded and needs to be rewritten. As it is now it is ripe for abuse (and based on the HRT records, they WILL abuse it, now or eventually)." ... that's it. It's what all the controversy boils down to.
And her we are three years later, the bill being abused by sociopathic men wanting their balls waxed for sexual pleasure.
that and that the government is compelling speech.
Yeah that is already happening and they were warned and did not even care. It's we are right you are wrong they talk about respecting people? How respectful of them were they to Peterson? That DR. is doctorate abd he used to teach at Harvard I think too yet they dismiss him as though he's an idiot and he's a prestigious Canadian intellectual.
@@Josh-rn1em Wait what? Please explain.
@@OttoKuus he's talking about a case a transgender woman lost about forcing a beautician to wax her genitals, as she hadn't had bottom surgery. c-16 didn't come into play in this, because a private business can work on whoever they want.
It has long been known that being intelligent in our day and age is a lonely enterprise with only a handful of people to really talk to. Jordan Peterson might be the loneliest man alive.
Well said, sir. Dr. Peterson reminds me of a person who may have arrived here from the future, and is desperately trying to tell everyone what the consequences of their actions are going to be.
We've always had intelligent people in our society and for the most part that's not been the root of the problem; I think in this day and age too many people falsely believe that they're intelligent and that their opinion matters or is far superior to others; the fact that everyone is given an audience regardless of how dull their thought is they'll have an audience and thus the confidence to keep talking [he said confidently whilst addressing an unearned virtual audience]. Village idiots now have the audacity to critique the local scholars; and critiquing is not an issue, the issue is when the scholars rebuttals, the idiots will simply call it "fake news".
@@abbuk900 Yeah, I think you might be right ;)
Transgender femininity in men and masculinity in woman hormones extremely rare
I can’t help but to watch the guy on the right move robotically. Love you JBP!
JBP is a globalist POS
DR Peterson is one of the few who sees through the cancer and authoritarianism that is identity politics.
Aliens spotted😂.
So now we can say that Aliens exist and they look forward to meet smartest people in the world only
Less than 1% exceptions in the community but they are causing chaos.
As Dr. Peterson points out so many times, in other speeches and lectures, the real changes (differences, more accurately), happen on the fringes of sociological issues.
Ha! The people actually causing the chaos are more like 10% of that 1%. Even smaller. It’s a bunch of radicals within a very tiny subset of people
@@tommym321 True, indeed. However, historically-speaking, only a small minority of people can bring about radical change
@@shmorpieM Historically speaking, a majority is needed to bring about change -of any kind.
@@tommym321 Actually, if one were to examine the history of the National Socialist Party (Nazis) of the 1930's and 1940's, at the height of its power, only 10% of the German population were card-carrying members of the party.
Psychologically speaking, the greater percentage of humanity has a lot more in common, than not. But, it's at the fringes where the real change takes place.
This clip seems to have cut off a few seconds early. Dr. P. was still talking when it ended.
You're right, the meaning of the last sentence is completely different if you listen to the rest of what he says. most people in the room do not even understand the problem, and if they have now really read the document, they have not yet understood what it means, they do not even understand the problems even after Jordan pointed them out.
This man (Mr. Peterson) is the flash mind wise, he puts thoughts, phrases, and well processed retorts. 🙇🏽🙇🏽🙇🏽
Cheers for uploading this senator
oh man，first time I feel real power of words. His logic is epic
The point of the term "identity" is that it is NOT contextual and reasonably static and in part genetic.
wut
@@sandwich675 Identity, as a concept, refers to what remains even when everything else changes. For example, your body replaces itself entirely throughout the years, you're technically, physically, a completely different person every decade. Yet people still know you as you, no matter the decade. Because some things stay. Your name, a lot of your physical features, what you've done, some of your core ideas, including ideas about yourself, your memories, and memories of others about you. Those are what people recognize you by, and constitute your identity ; everything that stays the same. Identity is basically the opposite of "contextual and changing".
For example, let's pick a trait that people might think of as an identity ; generous.
Now let's pick two individuals ; one that is generous to everyone, and another that is only generous once every few years, if he encounters someone with blue hair, that happens to say the right password, and the password might be different everytime, and any of these criteria might also be different everytime without notice.
People would say the first one is generous, the second isn't. Why ? Because the second's behavior is contextual and changing. It's not an identity. The first one is consistent throughout.
We have lost our way as a nation. The debates were once over how to achieve an agreed upon goal. Now it is an argument via an identity politicking olympiad.
Jordan is an intellectual giant compared to the other
Funny to see how this political subject speak so carefully to a don't fucm with me dr.
Well done Peterson
True. It's Not exactly easy
Good discussion, if this were relating to merely social behavior, I would suggest that people have a right to change or be mutable if thats their nature. However, one must have certain principles or a code of conduct as a foundation so that no matter how mercurial their nature is they still operate within a framework of principles that govern their behavior. Opinions and ideas can change but your character should be fixed. For instance:
1. No preying on elders or the helpless
2. Protect those that need protecting
3. Even if your an asshole (have integrity).
4. Know when to use violence and never let your emotions lead your actions.
5. Respect others but don't take shit.
6. Be useful to others but not at your expense (otherwise you may become useless).
7. In conflict seek to deescalate, subdue, or disarm first.
8. If you must kill...accept everything that comes with it.
The policy of sexuality and gender being "changing and contextual" written in law would give a future fascist state the legal backing to mandate conversion therapy. How is that not obvious?
can some explain to me the problem with conversion therapy, i don't understand what Peterson is saying
Why they cut it off?
Can anyone link the source video?
th-cam.com/video/KnIAAkSNtqo/w-d-xo.html
@@dominikapetrikova8897 Thanks.
It is amazing how these people seem to be unaware of the clear discrepancies in their belief system and the impossibility of its productive and practical implementation.
Brilliant!
This is what happens when you talk in a room full of puppets
Is the pronounciation of identity linked to political standing?
No: the other guy is clearly not a native speaker of English.
Chefs kiss
Huh I just learnt some thing.
The argument seems to make sense... but can't I identify as liberal in my youth, and conservative as I age? Or eat meat for fifty years and come to identify as vegetarian? Surely it's simplistic to bring it down to a question of what's entirely biological or entirely non-fixed?
The conversion therapy example I feel didn't quite prove or fit the idea he was laying out. More specifically, my issue is with his example not the idea it was meant to support. Very well argued otherwise.
Curious to know what you mean here? From my estimation, he was making the claim that the legislation is badly worded, so much so that it gives inalienable protections to transgender identity but then argues that gender identity is contextual and socially constructed, and he mentions the conversion therapy example as a way of demonstrating that the legislation lays the foundation for not giving transgenderism a cemented set of rights because the very legislation can also be used to argue for the role of contextually changing someone’s gender identity (conversion therapy).
I thought the British were boring, maybe I made a mistake. I think the Canadians are right there
If I go to jail long term I want a cell mate that identifies as a man but has the best parts
lmao
Can someone explain why gender identity should be based on biology only OR whatever contextual choice only ? Why this is a contradiction ? It could be based on both factors...
The guy in the red shirt looks like his E just came on or he is about to trip out hard.. hahaha
I could not care less how someone "identifies" themselves. The individual and the State have no right to insist that I agree.
He's far too intelligent for these people trying to pass the legislation
Is there anything in the Canadian bill that criminalized the failure to use people’s preferred gender pronouns?
I LOVE YOU
A great Canadian
Wow that guy knows how to ask a question in a sharp and direct way doesn't he?! 🤦
There are no transgender corpses, Senator.
We are human beings first and foremost. Focus on treating one another fairly as human beings, and quit obsessing over other attributes (such as gender, race, religion, political affiliation etc), which are personal to the individual. If one wants to identify as a white gay liberal scientologist man in the summer and a black lesbian conservative christian woman in the winter, it's their prerogative; it's no one else's business, and there certainly doesn't need to be _a_ _law_ _compelling_ _speech_ with regards to such individuals.
Mike drop if ever there was
That guy in the red shirt🤣🤣 his facial expressions while he’s digesting what’s being said 🤗
It obviously depends on how you define gender and sex.
I would like to propose:
Sex is biological, is therefore innate and fixed. When the Doctor asks you which sex you are, then u can give an answer independent of how you feel (identity wise) and the doc will be able to make a good decision for your body based on all the things that change by sex (like hormones and so forth).
Gender can be then well defined as something like a social identity. The social identity can be changed on a whim, in a haphazard way, by combining freely male, female and maybe neither (neutral) characteristics/manifestations. (And if youre not having surgery or smth u wont be able to change if u grow a bear for example or how your hips are looking)
*beard
If you open the door for gender fluidity then you have to believe me when I say I feel like I'm mentally deranged, so no accountability for me when I rape, murder or act Heinously. Is still within your definition isn't it?
two things:
1.in your (lets call it objection) you mix three things up and leap from one to another.
->i dont see how mentally deranged could be a state of gender. it is not the same thing to be mentally deranged and identify as e.g. female or male whatever. completely different categories
->i never stated nor implied that if someone is actually mentally deranged or just feels like that, that his or her whatever responsibility is suddenly gone
2.its not actually a objection because youre not objecting to a thing in my definition
Dr Peterson's point here is that even the so called social identities we normally see are not pure social constructions. I'd say even gender is heavily influenced by biological sex, which is exactly the reason it can't be arbitrary such that that you can freely add any characteristic to your gender identity. So basically a social identity is not something that could be altered anytime at your command. If some identity is so malleable that it could be "changed at a whim", that identity would soon lose it's value and soon become fictional
@@theragbag1993 I agree that social identities are heavily influenced by biological sex. My goal was to create a position that is acceptable for both sides. Therefore I wanted to give room for the position as far as social identity can be altered by oneself that it is changing over time due to our influences and decisions. And we maybe should try to push our selfs in a direction, wich is better for the whole society (whatever that exactly means isn't important for this point). As far as I can tell the social-identity-ideologists are trying exactly that, even though not successfully, because they are not sophisticated enough (e.g. see the video above from Dr. Peterson). So i have to admit, that my original comment should be more confined: "Our social identity can be changed by will, but not entirely, because our biological sex has a major influence." But "gender" needs to be that freely defined, because we know empirically, that an average born men can look and act like a woman as far as he can be mistaken for a woman. I am disagreeing therefore with you in that sense, that im still convinced that everyone can add or remove male or female characteristics on a whim (which are addable or removeable of course).
Transgender issues are the least pressing issues in the country today honestly
Its about who yells the loudest I think. Not based on logic.
Is there anything in the Canadian bill that criminalized the failure to use people’s preferred gender pronouns. Anyone can show me ?
First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
64-65-66 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017
And I agree that government legislation requiring people to use particular pronouns would be an infringement on civil liberties.
@teken 7 Where is this written in the bill?
@teken 7 Can you show me in the law exactly ?
First Session, Forty-second Parliament,
64-65-66 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017
(And I agree that government legislation requiring people to use particular pronouns would be an infringement on civil liberties.)
But from your response you don't seem to be able to show me where this is written.
My God. He gets caught with his pants down just before 3 min. mark. When you hear the , 'You knows' getting thrown around instead of a reasoned, empirical evidence-based argument, it's hand-waving at best. At least he was smiling for the audience. What an imbecile. Excellent use of the eyeglasses prop routine...does he think he's Atticus Finch in the courtroom? Irony! And they have pensions...ugh.
once you accept climate science you basically have no reference to judge any further scientific questions
2 genders.
Two sexes.
@@DieFlabbergast so you can be transracial?
@@lautaroaguilar9584 wdym by that term
It obviously depends on how you define gender and sex.
I would like to propose:
Sex is biological, is therefore innate and fixed. When the Doctor asks you which sex you are, then u can give an answer independent of how you feel (identity wise) and the doc will be able to make a good decision for your body based on all the things that change by sex (like hormones and so forth).
Gender can be then well defined as something like a social identity. The social identity can be changed on a whim, in a haphazard way, by combining freely male, female and maybe neither (neutral) characteristics/manifestations.
@@tillschuttert7403 nah.