Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not getting snarky, I don't see why your previously-held opinions somehow validate your anti-trans stance



It's not much of a range of political affiliations is it? - it's mostly limited to a subset of UK feminist thought (centered on mumsnet for some reason) and the mra/antifeminists/american religious right.

Do these allies really strike you as having the best interests of women at heart?

The thing, I’m not anti-trans. I’m concerned with the area where the rights of different groups come into conflict. And I can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t be concerned about that to be honest. I don’t believe that supporting transgender people means that they can have everything they want. I’m also amazed at women throwing other women under the bus.

CtevenSrowder

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Yes, that you're siding with people who, if they were around 60 years ago, would have been all for chemically castrating gay men.

Was Germaine Greer chemically castrating gay men 60 years ago?

LineOfBeauty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Was Germaine Greer chemically castrating gay men 60 years ago?

I don't know. Were some of the fore-bearers of the groups she is associating with fully in favour of such laws? Yes.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

Have you noticed who your allies in the fight against trans rights are?

It's the MRA/feminism-is-evil crowd, in America you've got the unwavering support of the religious right, right here on boards you've even got someone arguing that letting trans people transition will reduce the western birthrate!

In was in response to 20Cents suggestion that the government finance the operations for those wishing to transition. And I didn't argue anything because nobody responded to it. Am I wrong in suggesting that those doing a full transition will no longer be able to produce children?

The problem with people like yourself, B0jangles, is that you're so high up on your self appointed moral tower that you only see everything from one perspective. Yours.

BTW, You really should consider some of the arguments that 20Cents, and others (your allies) have made...

Isn't it also strange that the very same people who'd normally be up in arms at the suggestion that all men are violent and a threat to women are quite happy to agree with that same notion as long as the 'men' being talked about are transgender.

Ahh no. For I have posted up statistics when the claims were incorrect or inaccurate. The claim that males are more violent than females is correct. We are. Admittedly, it's mostly against other males, rather than females, but the claim by others were accurate, considering the context used.. Male on female violence is greater than female violence.

And since there are no statistics available on Transgender crime, we have no idea whether the statistics remain the same after transitioning, or whether it shifts. However, if a person believes that a biological male, remains a male personality, after transitioning, then it's logical to believe that the trend of violence would remain similar. Depending, of course, whether you believe that such instincts and behavior are biological or cultural.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

In was in response to 20Cents suggestion that the government finance the operations for those wishing to transition. And I didn't argue anything because nobody responded to it. Am I wrong in suggesting that those doing a full transition will no longer be able to produce children?
cultural.

The very idea that people transitioning could have any appreciable effect on a nation's birthrate is just insane. You'd probably have 10000-fold greater effect by running an ad campaign to encourage men to switch from briefs to boxers.

CtevenSrowder

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I don't know. Were some of the fore-bearers of the groups she is associating with fully in favour of such laws? Yes.

What groups is she associating with that have done this?

30 years ago Sinn Fein were supportive of a terrorist campaign around Britain and Ireland. Does that mean Noone should associate with them now? Are 30% of the Irish population no better than murderers in your opinion?

Also yiu still have answered if, in your opinion, it is OK for an anatomical male to be house with female prisoners?

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

The very idea that people transitioning could have any appreciable effect on a nation's birthrate is just insane. You'd probably have 10000-fold greater effect by running an ad campaign to encourage men to switch from briefs to boxers.

The numbers of people who are transitioning is on the rise at the moment without any external support (and yes, it is still a tiny amount). With government programs and funding, the numbers would likely rise in a much greater manner, especially since such support would give permission to those wanting to push transgender beliefs on to teenagers struggling with their sexuality. It would also give permission to those parents who want to change the gender of their children, which we've already seen signs of occurring.

I'm constantly amazed at how short-sighted and limited the view on this issue is. Supporting Trans rights without placing limitations is a smoking gun, that has the potential to affect many areas of our society... and we still have so little hard data on the whole trans story.

LineOfBeauty

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What groups is she associating with that have done this?

30 years ago Sinn Fein were supportive of a terrorist campaign around Britain and Ireland. Does that mean Noone should associate with them now? Are 30% of the Irish population no better than murderers in your opinion?

Also yiu still have answered if, in your opinion, it is OK for an anatomical male to be house with female prisoners?

I answered it posts ago, my case by case basis thing. You conveniently miss both my answers and my questions, it's an odd form of debating.

Right wing hate groups. The hate groups that hate gay people (but have to be slightly more covert about it these days) are forerunners to the hate groups that can so openly preach hate about transgender people because they are the vulnerable minority of the time.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

The numbers of people who are transitioning is on the rise at the moment without any external support (and yes, it is still a tiny amount). With government programs and funding, the numbers would likely rise in a much greater manner, especially since such support would give permission to those wanting to push transgender beliefs on to teenagers struggling with their sexuality. It would also give permission to those parents who want to change the gender of their children, which we've already seen signs of occurring.

I'm constantly amazed at how short-sighted and limited the view on this issue is. Supporting Trans rights without placing limitations is a smoking gun, that has the potential to affect many areas of our society... and we still have so little hard data on the whole trans story.

So... just like gay propoganda was going to turn everyone gay, trans propoganda will make us all trans? All it takes is a sufficiency of government funding?

LineOfBeauty

B0jangles wrote: »

So... just like gay propoganda was going to turn everyone gay, trans propoganda will make us all trans? All it takes is a sufficiency of government funding?

"With government programs and funding, the numbers would likely rise in a much greater manner"

That is quite the line. Because throughout human history there's loads of examples of governments around the world pumping out pro trans propaganda, funding and wheeling out programmes too. A trans world for everyone!

Edit: One of those government programmes might be getting every person in the country who is anti-trans, engaging them in this never ending debate while actual trans people go off and live their lives unimpeded.

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

So... just like gay propoganda was going to turn everyone gay, trans propoganda will make us all trans? All it takes is a sufficiency of government funding?

I really wish people would stop comparing the trans debate with the gay movement. They're completely different things especially considering how much society has changed since gay lifestyles became tolerated. Each time you compare gay to trans in the modern setting, you show just how little you understand LGB problems in the past.

And how about sticking to what I wrote and responding to that? I gave you plenty to respond to without going to extremes. Although, I shouldn't be surprised, since it seems to be a common posting style among trans advocates.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

I really wish people would stop comparing the trans debate with the gay movement. They're completely different things especially considering how much society has changed since gay lifestyles became tolerated. Each time you compare gay to trans in the modern setting, you show just how little you understand LGB problems in the past.

And how about sticking to what I wrote and responding to that? I gave you plenty to respond to without going to extremes. Although, I shouldn't be surprised, since it seems to be a common posting style among trans advocates.

To be fair, leaving out the T and Q there was a nice touch.

I'd love to hear more about your views though on LGB problems of the past when compared to T issues now.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gynoid wrote: »

Perhaps tis you who have a limited range of who you think the allies are. I see lots of businesswomen, writers, professors, biologists, film makers, animators, doctors, scientists, transwomen....every kind of woman and man are among those who thinks there is something amiss in radical trans activism. Good people in spite of the frankly disgusting abuse and insinuations thrown at them constantly. And for some death and rape threats and loss of jobs. Good people. I am glad to be with them.

Me too.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

I really wish people would stop comparing the trans debate with the gay movement. They're completely different things especially considering how much society has changed since gay lifestyles became tolerated. Each time you compare gay to trans in the modern setting, you show just how little you understand LGB problems in the past.

And how about sticking to what I wrote and responding to that? I gave you plenty to respond to without going to extremes. Although, I shouldn't be surprised, since it seems to be a common posting style among trans advocates.

The arguments against trans rights are almost entirely identical to the ones used against gay rights - the line used to be that 'promoting the gay lifestyle will turn everyone gay', that 'the gays are recruiting our children and turning them gay'. Those are the selfsame arguments you just used about trans rights.

They are only completely different to someone who wants to argue against trans rights while retaining their pro-gay rights credentials.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

To be fair, leaving out the T and Q there was a nice touch.

I'd love to hear more about your views though on LGB problems of the past when compared to T issues now.

Nah. I've already got the sense that you hear very little of other peoples viewpoints. Tried chasing down that rabbit hole previously, and.. just... nah.

And I use LGB because like many other bisexuals, I do consider the T to be different, and I never use the Q. Some people put in the Q, others don't. While initially, Transgender issues were similar to the LGB community, they've moved away quite a bit in recent years. If you don't know what I mean by that, you could check up on some LGB blogs.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

B0jangles wrote: »

The arguments against trans rights are almost entirely identical to the ones used against gay rights - the line used to be that 'promoting the gay lifestyle will turn everyone gay', that 'the gays are recruiting our children and turning them gay'. Those are the selfsame arguments you just used about trans rights.

They are only completely different to someone who wants to argue against trans rights while retaining their pro-gay rights credentials.

If they are the same, why was the LGB Alliance started by a former Stonewall head figure? Why are some transgender people saying that things are going too far? Are they bigots? Self-haters? What?

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

The arguments against trans rights are almost entirely identical to the ones used against gay rights - the line used to be that 'promoting the gay lifestyle will turn everyone gay', that 'the gays are recruiting our children and turning them gay'. Those are the selfsame arguments you just used about trans rights.

Except, you're taking my examples to extremes. Which is normal, I guess, with those intolerant of considering, just for a moment, what the other poster might mean by it.. rather than seeking something to put down.

They are only completely different to someone who wants to argue against trans rights while retaining their pro-gay rights credentials.

I've been Bisexual for 27 years (16 to 43). I don't need any more credentials than that. :rolleyes:

B0jangles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If they are the same, why was the LGB Alliance started by a former Stonewall head figure? Why are some transgender people saying that things are going too far? Are they bigots? Self-haters? What?

Why is another founder member of the LGB Alliance opposed to LGBT clubs in schools?


https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/23/lgb-alliance-co-founder-malcolm-clark-predatory-gay-teachers-anti-gay/


He appears to believe that recognising that teenagers can be trusted to know if they are gay/straight/bi is dangerous and wrong. That giving them a space to be open about themselves will automatically make them targets for predators.



Seems like a very strange attitude for a gay rights activist.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is another founder member of the LGB Alliance opposed to LGBT clubs in schools?


https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/23/lgb-alliance-co-founder-malcolm-clark-predatory-gay-teachers-anti-gay/


He appears to believe that recognising that teenagers can be trusted to know if they are gay/straight/bi is dangerous and wrong. That giving them a space to be open about themselves will automatically make them targets for predators.



Seems like a very strange attitude for a gay rights activist.

Pink News, seriously? That’s almost as bad as the Daily Mail for bias. I wasn’t actually talking about that guy. But he says if there’s predatory straight teachers then there can also be predatory gay teachers. Is that wrong?

And transgender people who say things are gone too far. What would they know, right?

CtevenSrowder

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I answered it posts ago, my case by case basis thing. You conveniently miss both my answers and my questions, it's an odd form of debating.

Right wing hate groups. The hate groups that hate gay people (but have to be slightly more covert about it these days) are forerunners to the hate groups that can so openly preach hate about transgender people because they are the vulnerable minority of the time.

Can you be more specific. What right-wing hate groups that~60 years were supportive of castrating men is Germaine Greer associating with?

Case by case basis? Ok, so if one self id'd woman is put with the other women and the other isn't, is the court denying the existence of the second person? If not, why not?

Secondly, under Irish law male and females have to be separated*. So by supporting a the case by case basis, are you not de-facto admitting that a self id'd trans-woman is not female (if you believe they should be able to be housed with males) and as such is not a women (an adult human female)?

*

"...and it shall be considered as a primary and invariable rule that the male prisoners shall in all cases be separated from the female, so as to prevent any communication between them;..."

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1826/act/74/enacted/en/print.html

B0jangles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Pink News, seriously? That’s almost as bad as the Daily Mail for bias. I wasn’t actually talking about that guy. But he says if there’s predatory straight teachers then there can also be predatory gay teachers. Is that wrong?

And transgender people who say things are gone too far. What would they know, right?

A person who claims to be a strong voice for gay rights is arguing that spaces which offer what is quite possibly the only safe outlet for a great many LGBT teenagers to talk about themselves and find some support should be eliminated. Pinknews aren't saying that, it's right there in his own tweet.

He is using the figleaf of 'they'll be targetted by predatory gay teachers' to do so.

So there are trans people who are opposed to the extension of trans rights? Ok, they are entitled to their opinion. Just like Paddy Manning was entitled to his opinion that extending marriage equality to gay people like himself was wrong.

Gynoid

Reasonably well-known people I know of, who are challenging extremist trans activism

Ray Blanchard - Doctor who has treated transgender people since the 1970s and who was an early pioneer fo gender change surgery
Kenneth Zucker - Canadian sexologist, who was head of Toronto's gender Identity clinic
Marcus Evans, Governor of Tavistock Gender Clinic in the UK, who resigned because of serious issues where debate was being stymied
Camille Paglia - famous feminist and academic
Germaine Greere - famous feminist
Martina Navratilova- sportswoman
Sharron Davies - sportswoman
JK Rowling - writer
Graham Linehan - writer
Nina Paley - fantastic animator, deplatformed from arts festival
Julie Burchill - journalist and self described militant feminist
Miranda Yardley - transwoman, writer
Dr Debbie Hayton - transwoman, physics teacher
Simon Fanshawe - comedian, co-founder of Stonewall, founder of LGB Alliance splinter group
Kathleen Stock - professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex
Sheila Jeffreys - lesbian and radical feminist, former prof of political science at Melbourne University
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie - famous Nigerian novelist
Will Malone - outspoken US endocrinologist
Stella O Malley - psychologist, film maker
Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans - Visiting Research Fellow at Kings College London, co-author of Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights
Dr Debra Soh - science journalist


There are so many others. This is not a right wing movement.

creditcarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah. I've already got the sense that you hear very little of other peoples viewpoints. Tried chasing down that rabbit hole previously, and.. just... nah.

And I use LGB because like many other bisexuals, I do consider the T to be different, and I never use the Q. Some people put in the Q, others don't. While initially, Transgender issues were similar to the LGB community, they've moved away quite a bit in recent years. If you don't know what I mean by that, you could check up on some LGB blogs.

Tbh, I think transgenderism is against gay rights in some way. There are huge arguments that it might not be good for vulnerable gay men/women who might be lured by transgenderism.



I posted this before, but there are cyclical theories that come and go that say men who are gay and women who are lesbian are actually just born in the wrong bodies. If you have a matn hating culture, and a homophobic one in both the feminine and male spaces, it could lead to someone wanting to be the opposite gender.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gynoid wrote: »

Reasonably well-known people I know of, who are challenging extremist trans activism

<LIST>

There are so many others. This is not a right wing movement.

And a very important one - Dr Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist who is questioning the assertion that hormone blockers are completely reversible. Though I’m in disbelief that the questioning of that mantra is in any way controversial.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

B0jangles wrote: »

A person who claims to be a strong voice for gay rights is arguing that spaces which offer what is quite possibly the only safe outlet for a great many LGBT teenagers to talk about themselves and find some support should be eliminated. Pinknews aren't saying that, it's right there in his own tweet.

He is using the figleaf of 'they'll be targetted by predatory gay teachers' to do so.

So there are trans people who are opposed to the extension of trans rights? Ok, they are entitled to their opinion. Just like Paddy Manning was entitled to his opinion that extending marriage equality to gay people like himself was wrong.

I’m not denying he said it. I’m saying that the words Pink News writes around any given tweet on transgender issues tend to be hopelessly biased. I try to read from neutral sources on the topic. It’s hard to find an outlet that doesn’t lean in some way, but some are worse than others. Pink News, the Daily Mail, I tend to avoid. The Times UK is a beacon of sense and clarity on the topic. I like the Guardian but they are not great on this topic, seemingly happy to throw women under the bus.

Back to yer man’s tweet, is the formation of groups in schools to discuss sexuality not worthy of discussion or comment?

Gynoid

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And a very important one - Dr Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist who is questioning the assertion that hormone blockers are completely reversible. Though I’m in disbelief that the questioning of that mantra is in any way controversial.

Yes, thanks ODB. I was trying to remember names but there are loads more.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Gynoid wrote: »

There are so many others. This is not a right wing movement.

Of course it isn't, and trying to shame left-wing critics of the trans agenda by asking who their "allies" are is pathetic.

In reality, this is about safety, privacy, dignity, and fairness — especially for girls, women, lesbians, and parents, the groups most likely to be impacted by the more radical "trans rights" demands.

Most people, regardless of political affiliation, can see that a biological male MMA fighter breaking a female opponent's skull is wrong. They can see that putting a male-bodied sex offender in a women's prison is wrong. They can see that some schoolgirls would rather miss school entirely while menstruating than use unisex toilets. They are tired of activists wanting to make trans individuals feel comfortable and accepted everywhere — while not giving a damn about the impact on anyone else.

I am glad people are finally fighting back on this. It's getting harder to dismiss the opposition as Jordan Peterson and the religious right.

Gynoid

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Of course it isn't, and trying to shame left-wing critics of the trans agenda by asking who their "allies" are is pathetic.

In reality, this is about safety, privacy, dignity, and fairness — especially for girls, women, lesbians, and parents, the groups most likely to be impacted by the more radical "trans rights" demands.

Most people, regardless of political affiliation, can see that a biological male MMA fighter breaking a female opponent's skull is wrong. They can see that putting a male-bodied sex offender in a women's prison is wrong. They can see that some schoolgirls would rather miss school entirely while menstruating than use unisex toilets. They are tired of activists wanting to make trans individuals feel comfortable and accepted everywhere — while not giving a damn about the impact on anyone else.

I am glad people are finally fighting back on this. It's getting harder to dismiss the opposition as Jordan Peterson and the religious right.

I just wanted to compile some kind of a list because if people keep throwing the words bigoted, backward, hateful, phobic, etc at you it can feel pretty hurtful. My Da used to say if someone calls you a horse, first time you laugh, second time you tell them to fcuk off, but the third time you might feel like looking in the mirror to check even though you know full well you are not a horse. That is the intended effect of people on here who call dissenters all these very insulting epithets repeatedly, suggesting the other is literally hateful, that they are shocked at people they used to respect, that discussion should be shut down etc etc. They are calling you a horse.

creditcarder

Gynoid wrote: »

I just wanted to compile some kind of a list because if people keep throwing the words bigoted, backward, hateful, phobic, etc at you it can feel pretty hurtful. My Da used to say if someone calls you a horse, first time you laugh, second time you tell them to fcuk off, but the third time you might feel like looking in the mirror to check even though you know full well you are not a horse. That is the intended effect of people on here who call dissenters all these very insulting epithets repeatedly, suggesting the other is literally hateful, that they are shocked at people they used to respect, that discussion should be shut down etc etc. They are calling you a horse.

Or a mysognist

nkl12xtw5goz70

Gynoid wrote: »

I just wanted to compile some kind of a list because if people keep throwing the words bigoted, backward, hateful, phobic, etc at you it can feel pretty hurtful.

I hear you. As someone who is considered "right-wing" on economic issues, I'm used to the tactics you see on this thread, but I can appreciate that others might be taken aback by what happens when one dares disagree with the radical left.

It doesn't mean, of course, that you're bigoted, backward, etc., just that they are trying to bully you into compliance, or at least shame you into silence.