Jordan Peterson interview on C4

nkl12xtw5goz70

Gynoid wrote: »

I am just quoting that because it is illustrative of the embedded TRA position re children. Get them young. Before puberty. That is around 8 or 9, I suppose, maybe younger.

Which is absolutely nuts.

I'm sure we've all known girls in the 6–12 age range who were into football and climbing trees and playing with boys. Such girls used to be known as tomboys. Now they are potentially "trans."

Most tomboys generally grow up into well-adjusted women. But that can't happen if a young girl is treated with puberty blockers or surgery before she's old enough to even understand what is going on.

It amazes me to see how cowed many people are by the trans activist bullying. We should be willing to stand in front of tanks if necessary to protect our kids against this kind of crap.

20Cent

Similar to climate change.right wingers that have tread a blog post think they know more than trained experts in a field.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Similar to climate change.right wingers that have tread a blog post think they know more than trained experts in a field.

Quick..call the thought police..

Brian?

Gynoid wrote: »

What do you instinctively think about these treatments? Honestly.

I've already said. They worry me. If one of my kids was proposed this treatment, I don't think I'd want them to have it. Which is why it needs research, I'd need some fairly hefty data to approve.

nkl12xtw5goz70

World Rugby will review its policy on transgender players in light of research showing that reduced testosterone does not lead to a proportionate reduction in strength and power.

Led by Dr Nicola Williams, the group Fair Play For Women is asking World Rugby to protect female-only competition to guarantee fairness and safety for women and girls.

Good for them. I hope they succeed. I don't want to see girls and women injured — or deterred from taking up a sport in the first place — because of a flawed ideology.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

It's been four years now.
Are professors being dragged off to jail for using pronouns now?

You're awfully hung up on Petersons belief that he might be imprisoned for not obeying the Bill.

However, lets widen the scope a bit. Professors are losing the jobs over not using gender pronouns. That is something that Peterson was seeking to fight against..

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/virginia-teacher-says-wrongfully-fired-student-wrong-pronouns-trnd/index.html

"The school, according to the lawsuit, gave the teacher an ultimatum: Use the student's preferred pronouns or lose your job. School officials suspended the teacher for insubordination. Vlaming was ultimately fired after he refused to use the male pronouns and for repeatedly ignoring orders from his bosses."

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/02/ohio-college-professor-who-refused-to-use-a-transgender-students-preferred-pronouns-loses-religious-freedom-case.html
"But the University insisted that I endorse an ideology I do not believe is true. This is simply wrong. True tolerance must be a two-way street. Now the district court suggests that professors have no free speech rights, which should trouble us all. Public universities have no business compelling people to express ideological beliefs that they do not hold. But the court’s decision opens the door for them to shift from being a marketplace of ideas to an assembly line for one type of thought.”"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

"A doctor who refused to use transgender pronouns as people's chosen sex as it went against his Christian faith has lost his tribunal."

So... we have highly educated people who spent a fortune in time and money to get where they are... but they lose their positions because someone wants to be referred as something else.

Peterson was right to oppose this kind of speech control, and I genuinely hope others will too.

CtevenSrowder

Brian? wrote: »

I am indeed highly selective. I don't feel the need to pile in on 20cent, but when on of the posters who's objected to the name calling calls 20cent totalitarian I feel obliged to point out the hypocrisy and hyperbole. I select the time and place.

So you openly admit to engaging in hypocrisy yourself so.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

You're awfully hung up on Petersons belief that he might be imprisoned for not obeying the Bill.

However, lets widen the scope a bit. Professors are losing the jobs over not using gender pronouns. That is something that Peterson was seeking to fight against..

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/virginia-teacher-says-wrongfully-fired-student-wrong-pronouns-trnd/index.html

"The school, according to the lawsuit, gave the teacher an ultimatum: Use the student's preferred pronouns or lose your job. School officials suspended the teacher for insubordination. Vlaming was ultimately fired after he refused to use the male pronouns and for repeatedly ignoring orders from his bosses."

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/02/ohio-college-professor-who-refused-to-use-a-transgender-students-preferred-pronouns-loses-religious-freedom-case.html
"But the University insisted that I endorse an ideology I do not believe is true. This is simply wrong. True tolerance must be a two-way street. Now the district court suggests that professors have no free speech rights, which should trouble us all. Public universities have no business compelling people to express ideological beliefs that they do not hold. But the court’s decision opens the door for them to shift from being a marketplace of ideas to an assembly line for one type of thought.”"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

"A doctor who refused to use transgender pronouns as people's chosen sex as it went against his Christian faith has lost his tribunal."

So... we have highly educated people who spent a fortune in time and money to get where they are... but they lose their positions because someone wants to be referred as something else.

Peterson was right to oppose this kind of speech control, and I genuinely hope others will too.

Petersons original claim to fame was he was standing up against the government forcing him to say something or he'd go to jail. Turned out not to be true.

The examples you give are people fired not jailed. A university or school can't have staff bullying students, the religious aspect is sad. God made Eve from one of Adams ribs according to the Bible.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Petersons original claim to fame was he was standing up against the government forcing him to say something or he'd go to jail. Turned out not to be true.

Yup. he was wrong about being arrested.. although,personally, I suspect his prominent publicity had something to do with that.

But you're correct. he wasn't arrested.

The examples you give are people fired not jailed. A university or school can't have staff bullying students, the religious aspect is sad. God made Eve from one of Adams ribs according to the Bible.

haha... I should have known better. :facepalm:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Brian? wrote: »

I've already said. They worry me. If one of my kids was proposed this treatment, I don't think I'd want them to have it. Which is why it needs research, I'd need some fairly hefty data to approve.

So why are they being given to children without the necessary testing? And why is the mantra “They’re completely reversible” trotted out? We don’t know that.

More research is needed. But it’s not ethical enrol children in the necessary clinical trials. So we’re at an impasse.

Children have been enrolled on clinical trials before but that was when certain death was the other option. Not some nebulous plea of “They might kill themselves!” I’m talking about diseases that would swiftly kill them so there was nothing to lose.

And we actually do have some inkling about the long-term effects of pubertal blockers through them being prescribed to girls with precocious puberty. Some very damaging side effects have been reported such as osteoporosis.

Brian?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

So you openly admit to engaging in hypocrisy yourself so.

That's a pretty ridiculous conclusion.

20Cent

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So why are they being given to children without the necessary testing? And why is the mantra “They’re completely reversible” trotted out? We don’t know that.

More research is needed. But it’s not ethical enrol children in the necessary clinical trials. So we’re at an impasse.

Children have been enrolled on clinical trials before but that was when certain death was the other option. Not some nebulous plea of “They might kill themselves!” I’m talking about diseases that would swiftly kill them so there was nothing to lose.

And we actually do have some inkling about the long-term effects of pubertal blockers through them being prescribed to girls with precocious puberty. Some very damaging side effects have been reported such as osteoporosis.

There has been research and work being done for decades. Just because it's suddenly in the public eye more yer acting like they are like Meglele experimenting on kids.

Truth is they know what they are doing and are experts in the area.

creditcarder

Gynoid wrote: »

So are opiods. So were symphysiotemies. So are electro shock therapies. So were the huge numbers of hysterectomies that may have been unnecessary and caused a lot of harm. So is over prescription of anti depressants and anti biotics. Etc etc. Isn't appeal to authority one of the fallacies in argumentation?
One doctor you should look at is Johanna Olson Kennedy - a leading figure in gender treatment in children, she has lectured in the UK - if you are interested in being informed. When asked what if she makes a mistake by removing breasts from a 13 year old girl she replied they can always get new ones later if they want.

Here's another:



She opposes mandatory psychological assessments for transgender children seeking treatment, saying in a 2018 Atlantic magazine article: "I don’t send someone to a therapist when I’m going to start them on insulin

Gynoid

20Cent wrote: »

There has been research and work being done for decades. Just because it's suddenly in the public eye more yer acting like they are like Meglele experimenting on kids.

Truth is they know what they are doing and are experts in the area.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/22/ssweden-teenage-transgender-row-dysphoria-diagnoses-soar

How come the investigations are starting? Sweden. UK. Australia. "Truth is"...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

20Cent wrote: »

There has been research and work being done for decades. Just because it's suddenly in the public eye more yer acting like they are like Meglele experimenting on kids.

Truth is they know what they are doing and are experts in the area.

Good Lord. They don’t. It’s an off-label use. That means by its very definition that the necessary testing hasn’t been done for that usage. And there’s no ethical way to do that testing. It’s not certain life or death like when children tried new drugs for, say, leukaemia that they were 100% going to die from. I honestly despair at the ignorance of huge swathes of the general public on science matters. The children being given Lupron to block puberty are indeed being used as guinea pigs.

I know lots of advanced cancer patients and that includes prostate cancer patients. Some of them admit that Lupron knocked the stuffing out of them. And they’re grown men who have finished developing.

20Cent

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

20Cent wrote: »

I’ve worked on achieving FDA approval for a particular drug. Many people with biology qualifications or who work in pharmaceuticals have a good grasp of the drug testing and approval process. Many will know more than doctors actually as they tend to skim a number of biology disciplines rather than going into one in-depth. My friends who did graduate medicine after their biology degree were told that they didn’t need to know their degree subject to the level that they did. Doctors are not all-knowing.

Do you know what off-label usage means?

I’m pretty sure you are trolling at this stage, to be honest, but you’re just making yourself look daft so carry on.

Outlaw Pete

Seems he's somewhat on the mend. Good to see.


https://www.instagram.com/p/B84aaNVAUYD/
https://twitter.com/MikhailaAleksis/status/1231304700001050625

Not a fan of man in many, if not most ways, but I don't know how anyone could take any satisfaction in his suffering. I hope his recovery will be complete. He looks very thin in that photo, I suspect he's got a ways to go and I wish him well.

Also, St Basils is an amazing structure on an amazing scale. Would love to visit.

ligerdub

Candie wrote:

Not a fan of man in many, if not most ways, but I don't know how anyone could take any satisfaction in his suffering. I hope his recovery will be complete. He looks very thin in that photo, I suspect he's got a ways to go and I wish him well.

Curious as to what specifically about him you're not a fan of?

The level of disdain JP gets is staggering. His main focus is trying to see people find their right path in life, to live a meaningful existence, not waste time and generally to encourage people and believe in themselves.

Frankly I find the way he is viewed as some sort of controversial figure to be absolutely disgusting.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ligerdub wrote: »

Curious as to what specifically about him you're not a fan of?

The level of disdain JP gets is staggering. His main focus is trying to see people find their right path in life, to live a meaningful existence, not waste time and generally to encourage people and believe in themselves.

Frankly I find the way he is viewed as some sort of controversial figure to be absolutely disgusting.

Nobody has to justify to you why they dislike someone. You’re unlikely to agree with their reasons anyway so why does it matter? Is there no popular figure that you dislike?

If you want an example though, the video here and longer interview of him talking about workplace sexual harassment was bone-chilling to me. Gave me the creeps.

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

Curious as to what specifically about him you're not a fan of?

The level of disdain JP gets is staggering. His main focus is trying to see people find their right path in life, to live a meaningful existence, not waste time and generally to encourage people and believe in themselves.

Frankly I find the way he is viewed as some sort of controversial figure to be absolutely disgusting.

I would have answered that question but the way you've framed it is so clearly itching for a fight.

I didn't express disdain, nor any view on how controversial he is or isn't. All I did was wish him well.

ligerdub

Candie wrote:

I didn't express disdain, nor any view on how controversial he is or isn't. All I did was wish him well.

"Not a fan in most ways" is far from a glowing reference. Pretty unnecessary in the context of appearing supportive of his plight.

ligerdub

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote:

If you want an example though, the video here and longer interview of him talking about workplace sexual harassment was bone-chilling to me. Gave me the creeps.

Consider context, and you just saying that doesn't make it a fair reflection of the video. Maybe specify something mentioned.

You're making it sound like he's a rape apologist or fiend.

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

"Not a fan in most ways" is far from a glowing reference. Pretty unnecessary in the context of appearing supportive of his plight.

I didn't realize I had to provide a glowing reference to wish him well in his recovery.

I assumed that even if I don't agree with someone on some, most, or even all matters, that I could wish them well on a human level after reading about their suffering.

One eyed Jack

ligerdub wrote: »

"Not a fan in most ways" is far from a glowing reference. Pretty unnecessary in the context of appearing supportive of his plight.

Nonsense, I regard most people as a pain in the arse, still wouldn’t bear them any ill will, and that includes Peterson who I think is just a bs peddler, still wouldn’t bear him any ill will though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ligerdub wrote: »

Consider context, and you just saying that doesn't make it a fair reflection of the video. Maybe specify something mentioned.

You're making it sound like he's a rape apologist or fiend.

Your jealous defence of him is pretty weird.

I’ve seen the whole interview. My conclusions are different from yours. Seriously lads, he’s not that hard to understand.

Sometimes people like and dislike different people. I can’t believe I have to say that. And I’ve seen you criticise public figures on here yourself. I’m sure you’d not feel like you have to justify that.

EmmetSpiceland

It’s amazing how some people can have so little compassion or, indeed, consideration for their fellow humans but they will get upset and attack anyone who isn’t “on board” with this guy, or his message.

Gynoid

https://twitter.com/S3LF_MAD3_WOMAN/status/1231022284044816384?s=19

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gynoid wrote: »

https://twitter.com/S3LF_MAD3_WOMAN/status/1231022284044816384?s=19

Chase Strangio insists that there is no such thing as biological sex. :eek: Flat out denies it exists.