This is so crystal clearly said I don’t know how people still fail to see what Dr. Carrier is saying here.

As usual, you have distorted the facts (the Tavistock standards of care were objectively poor; which is why only this clinic is getting this result; and there are a ton more sources here than just “NYT and Guardian” articles, including actual experts on diverse subjects, detailed documentation, and even critics sympathetic to Peterson).

And your logic sucks (one negligent hospital does not equal all hospitals are negligent; “I don’t like the Guardian, therefore all sources that disagree with me are wrong, and I don’t have to address any facts even documented in the Guardian“; and other like travesties of reasoning).

Meanwhile, that being the only example you gave of something I said “unravelling” (even though I never said anything pertaining to this; for example, I did not say there would never be any negligent clinics serving any particular community poorly who therefore need closing or reform; and even though this isolated incident doesn’t even support your generalization), your claim that “many” of the things I said are “unraveling” is typical bullshit from Peterson fans, just as I documented.

You don’t check facts. Your contact with reality is poor. And you suck at rational thought. All you have is feelings—an emotional attachment to an ideology, rather than a commitment to understand reality. Just like Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers.

This is a problem. You really need to see to it.

Turns out Peterson’s predictions on the trans issue regarding sex changes are bang on.

Thousands from the Tavistock clinic and the NHS suing after sex changes. It turns out there wasn’t enough long term evidence to initiate any of these programs. Too late for the thousands of lives ruined by the treatment, but Peterson was the right wing pseudo intellectual who shouldn’t be listened to.

Many of the arguments in your article have unraveled a few years later. Pretty much a copy and paste job of the NYT and Guardian articles on Peterson, who incidentally are distancing themselves from the self indulgence.

You must have missed the point of my article. This is not a catalog of Peterson’s political positions. It is a catalog of his crankery and incompetence.

And I did cover his racism in respect to that…

See my entire bit about his “shaking sticks” argument; and the whole section about Nazism; and my digs at his race-position with his dream for a “white man’s paradise,” and “identity” politics that are “exclusively white male or pro-white-male.”

However, if you know of any good debunking videos that specifically address his race baiting and race politics, share them here and if they are indeed good, I’ll paste them in.

Otherwise, if you are looking for articles about racism and white privilege, see my “racism” category (dropdown menu, top right).

Every single thing you just said is either irrelevant (it addresses nothing I wrote whatsoever) or already refuted by the evidence I cite and thus effects no defense.

That you don’t notice either is disturbing.

It’s not a case that the rhetoric is homophobic, that’s never been stated. This is evident in his lectures, he states masculine and feminine roles get played regardless of the sex who is raising the children, whether they be same sex or non-same sex couples. One parent will take more of a masculine role, which makes sense because it’s intricately linked to how the species biologically survive. The majority of child-raising has always been a male and female partner (statistically speaking). That is not to suggest that homosexual couples can raise children or that males and females assume an absolute gender role; women, for example, tend to become more masculine in temperament as they get older and males, as the testosterone lowers around the late 20’s mark, tend to adopt more feminine traits.

Jordan hasn’t mocked people, or when he does at least it’s for good reason (mocking is a sign of being below contempt and therefore the content is not meant to be taken seriously. The issue is when it’s used maliciously or for the purpose of malevolence (something Jordan continuously states in his work). There hasn’t been any evidence (as far I have seen) of what he’s said advocating the harming of people or hate speech. You cannot choose who reads your book and who resonates with it, just as the Nazis perverted Nietzsche’s work.

The case for C-16 concerning transgender people is also misunderstood and coming from a perspective of English common law. Essentially the argument is that C-16 doesn’t bring human rights to trans people (as that is already affirmed in human rights law in the first place by representation of the individual regardless of ethnic background, sex etc), but instead is codifying the expression of such as mandatory. For example, the mandatory referring of people by pronouns by law (which is an important distinction) in society on the basis that:

“gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. It also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person’s gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence. (https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/421C16E)

The law also adds “gender identity or expression” to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.

It’s a systematic imposition of language by law and is therefore tyrannical in nature. You cannot force someone to say something they don’t want to say and the issue is how this codified law (contradiction English Common Law) transforms compelled speech to an act of accusing people of prejudice, or hate speech because they did not use the right pronoun. This was blindly evident in the Lindsay Shepard case when she was reprimanded by faculty for showing Peterson’s critique of Bill C-16 in her class, which was concluded out to be bogus anyway. This coinciding with the domination of Marxism within humanity studies in some universities (something I experienced when I did my Bachelors and Masters in History, though I do not do ideologies), shows the abuse that this type of legislation has granted on an ideological level, e.g. stopping people from using contextual cases as an example to prove a point (disassociating the context/content itself and using it to show a case). The point is that the legal precedent set up can lead to non-legal action being totalitarian in nature e.g. you shut down a lecture because it has the inkling of being “bigoted” with no evidence to support that claim (as evident in the Lindsay Shepard case). This can lead to behaviour beyond the confines of the law; it was wilfully apparent in the USSR.

Often issues like these work outside the confines of the law, whether compelled speech or abusive institutions.

My opinion (with little evidence): This is not to say that Peterson’s content isn’t aimed at men; firstly, that’s the main commonality (since the majority of people anywhere in the world are heterosexual), it’s not only a logistical but also statistical point as well (since it incorporates the majority of cases within the human species) but secondly, the statistical element that accrues to the “downtrodden young man” is something wholly valid because most heterosexual men strive for that in their lives; even for homosexuals, the aim is somewhat similar as the idea of homosexual marriage wouldn’t be an issue in the first place had this not been apparent (even though there’s a strong case for how traditional marriage institutions e.g. the church have treated homosexuals, otherwise homosexuals with traditional religious views wouldn’t be advocating for gay marriage); there are only so many outliers to conclude human beings are different before you conclude they’re similar: that’s why the constructionist vs universalist argument is not a valid dichotomy anymore, neuroscience has shown this isn’t the case (you bring it up yourself with neuroplacidity, (Jan Plamper’s “History of Emotions” is a good work showing how the dichotomy is no longer relevant).

Back to me being disassociated: Even in this case, he doesn’t explicitly imply it’s an aim, more of a indicative by-product to having a successful life (from the perspective of the individual striving for that successful life) because that’s what women go for; men who are conscientious, hard working, attractive and successful and mirror the similar level to their intelligence and success (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.1984.54.1.47). You don’t need a psychological textbook to show you that, it’s about choosing the optimum chance of success in life. You don’t want to be with someone who’s going to be a net-loss to you in life, you want them to benefit your life in some way (unless your open to opportunistic, depressing and abusive partners). The argument isn’t against sexual liberation or female dominance, to suggest that is to misconstrue what’s been said because Jordan’s point is men and women are different and abide by different criteria when it comes to dominance, because they’re biologically different; the cognitive aspect is more or less the same but women rate higher in agreeableness and neuroticism, those are biological aspects the individual cannot control.

My opinion: What’s being said is that with sexual liberation (since the 1960’s) and female dominance (in modern society anyway, historical cases have shown female dominance in multiple sectors, just not political; though that would imply political power equals de-facto power), has created multiple issues such as the balance between work and a social life, or priorities like having a family and having children (something which comes very apparent as you get older). These aren’t subjects to take lightly because the way they’re navigated is valid. It’s a valid discourse to have and has an effect in society.

Back to me being disassociated: There is a stride to commit to a traditionally structures family (two parents and kids with an extended family) as the optimum way, but that doesn’t imply traditional gender roles; he pretty much states there’s always going to be outliers, some women are going to be more masculine and some men are going to be more feminine: for example, the rate of agreeableness in women, according to Jordan, is something like 60% which leaves almost half as less-agreeable. That doesn’t take away from the 60% because it’s above half but it’s an important outlier to show (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/). But having the traditional structure is optimum for raising psychologically sound, healthy, children who can grow and be successful in the world, that is to say contributing members of society to are liked by their peers, who equally want them to succeed as well. This is a large misunderstanding and is illustrated, in the article, by “forced monogamy”, something which has been mis-implied. The point of it is to show that society encourages you, through social values, to be monogamous and marry one person and that links to the point of marriage (contrary to partnerships) being an act of faith, because you stick with the person regardless of the adversity you face through your life. This also coincides with the fact polygamous marriages tend to be higher in violence and monogomous marriages tend to promote better equality and an overall positive outcome (https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war). If the relationship turns out to be abusive, the above mentioned isn’t an excuse to stick to that marriage (and arguably it wasn’t really a marriage in the first place) which is why it’s advocated to be truthful about yourself and play a straight game (that is to say, be as honest as you possibly can be). It’s not a case of “Jesus, get a hobby already” (and that is quoted out of context in this article, it’s picking out a quote for your own self-benefit to slander) because the implication is that marriage is an oppressive institution when it’s not, if you don’t want to be a housewife, you don’t have to be: that’s the benefit of free choice, pick something to do and be good at it (whether it’s a profession or areas of expertise, which can be seen as a hobby, at least at first); just make sure, when you dedicate yourself to parenting, you do a good job and actually raise your kid with good ethics and a value structure but it proves to not only be a net positive to society but also means they’re raised mentally and physically healthy.

There’s nothing wrong with dressing the part, in a suit (something that’s been apparent since the advocation of the suit began well before the 1950’s). Neither is what being said rhetoric, all you need do is watch his lectures, he even has a list of books he quotes which you can read. This isn’t unfounded material. Coinciding with the critique that he thinks classical liberalism is a safe passage to economic freedom, something that’s partly agreed, though it is not an assumption that capitalism is inherently evil as it simply has a system that has private ownership and profit (and there are many substructures of capitalism, including ones like in the Scandinavian countries which are very left-wing and regulated).

Concerning the point about being bad at science, again the point is misconstrued, and he quotes neuroplacidity in his lectures because he shows that (using Piaget’s constructivism) that there are a-priori instincts within human beings but a lot of that is channelled, and influenced, through social standards and structures and as that changes, so does the development of the brain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4VSRg4e8w). The point about lobsters is that, like humans, there is a dominance hierarchy which humans also have. The similarity is beyond a superficial observation, it’s part of a biological process that stands millions of years and pre-dates human beings (whatever form) themselves. Even, as “an actual scientist who studies lobsters says” social hierarchies isn’t apparent in acoel, it’s still apparent in our biological ancestors (when we evolved to primates) and also in most social creatures who have to abide by a hierachy. The reason is because there is a consensus to mitigate the use of violence (which is incredibly apparent in our animal cousins and our ancestors) and therefore develop consensus. This is stated in Thomas Hobbs and Roseau for the human aspect in that a social contract is formed, and that’s in a situation where things are relatively stable because, like the lobster case, aggressive displays arise from access to resources: something that is inherently evident when people are at the bottom of the social spectrum e.g. gang violence. Humans work together in situations where there’s a net benefit and because otherwise firstly, conflict provides an opportunity for others to succeed in place of the social conflict (this is also linked in game theory) and secondly, as you said by your own words, “Humans as a species are dependent on social cooperation; they do very poorly as loners, and individual self-sufficiency is exhausting to impossible.” Jordan says this almost in parallel, people who move up the dominance hierarchy or are considered valuable are reciprocal and value is based off of an exchange of favours. It’s a social contract that’s based partly on cohersion (since society is to an extent forceful to socialise you into proper behaviour based on the values society has promoted, and that enables you to cooperate properly) but that also enables cooperation in the first place. It’s complex and it’s evident, even in something as complex as modern society otherwise it wouldn’t have been theorised in the first place. That’s something apparent in most social creatures or pack animals. Even from your article from Psychology today, it states this. This isn’t a matter of who has the most resources (as stated in the article or probably stated by Irwin Bernstein), so this wouldn’t be the flawed (as you say) Marxist theory of social dominance. It doesn’t have to common when it comes to dominance, it just has to be evident; dominance doesn’t also need to contribute to the stability of group-based hierarchies because that implies some level of forcefulness in conformity to the group (whereas society is broadly forceful in socialising so you’re a reasonable member of society, that’s why you, for example, learn to concentrate and sit down in school). This is a debate about the substance of the structures but the structures themselves, Jordan is conducting a meta-analysis (which is why he does an analysis of archetypes within different narratives).

One issue I do also point in relation to this is social animals can be co-operative and conflict takes place within the framework of that, because humans (like most social/pack animals) are dependent on that. The conflict inflicted is within the group and can be for status, resources etc and factors like that are socially dependant. I mean, all you need do is look at conflicts historically, for example in Early Modern Europe, to see how violence was mitigated as part of what’s called the “status economy” (see Hilay Zmora, “The Feud in Early Modern Germany”). Co-operation does not exclude conflict or competition. In fact, those aspects are contingent on each other which, from my perspective, is biological. That is why though history (whether it is the Roman-Sassanid Wars, which had agreed trading routes for merchants that did not get harassed, or Early Modern Germany, where thrusting was not permitted in sword fighting against fellow Christians), there has always been some kind of social agreement to treat others in times of conflict and the taboo that comes with when that is broken. When it is, usually the individual is shunned; good examples can be seen, for example, with the treatment of executioners in the Medieval period (who often earned good money but were social outcasts).

The point about Jung is invalid in the article by Phil Christman because the point central point about men being protectors of women is not valid. According to Jordan, men are more aggressive because they are higher in testosterone, which mellows out in the upper 20’s (https://www.medicinenet.com/high_and_low_testosterone_levels_in_men/views.htm). This means less risk-taking and less readiness to pick a fight with other males, because that’s how male competition takes form. To relate this to Jung, it’s imparted with Jung’s concept of the shadow (which is something the persona, the outward appearance of the person, rejects because they’re issues which are considered too taboo). it’s not an issue of “who is manly” but as Jordan says, realising you are capable of untold destruction, and good morals is a case of making the conscious decision to not do it (by choice, which means standing up to adversity and not being ignorant as ignorance is not an equivalent to being morally good; this was pointed out by Nietzsche whereby he states people disguise their cowardice as morality). In short, humans are capable of horrible things (usually men when it comes to subjects like war, instigating, physical violence etc. I mean all your need to do is look at, with accounts of soldiers in war, in what drove those people to choose to commit horrendous acts).

The point about men and women containing essential and separate ad immutable personality characteristics, is not one based on personality, cognitive ability or leadership, but temperament. Women are higher in agreeableness and neuroticism, which Jordan should know as he’s a clinical and behavioural psychologist and invests highly in the big 5 personality (see previous article linked).

The fact based critique about gender pronouns is valid, especially in opening up to a dialogue, but that doesn’t take away from Jordan’s arguments about free speech. Especially when gender, as stated in the article, is a construction and is relative to the historical period. However, one if dependant on the other. For example, in the Roman Empire (Anthony Kaldellis podcast talking to Stephen Morris who produced ” “When Brothers Dwell in Unity”: Byzantine Christianity and Homosexuality (McFarland & Company 2016) (and in the case of the Mamluk Sultanate, from Thomas Bauer, “Mamluk Literature: Misunderstandings and New Apporaches,” in Mamluk Studies Review IX ) sexuality was divisioned between those who were “bearded” and non “bearded” (which included young men, eunuchs, women etc), but the theme is more or less the same because it relates to common features (softer features) that are more apparent in women than men, as that is the commonality, biologically, with women.

Jordan’s point about “ancient aliens” is something that has been apparent for existentialists for years (not literally ancient aliens). He admits it’s a mystery and there is a level where, existentially, things can no longer be quantified within human understanding; that’s the basis of metaphysics. The example of the snake cannot be compared to pseudo-science because firstly, it’s not a scientific statement to make (he says this in a discussion and says he’s reaching the borders of what he knows; he doesn’t need to backtrack on the point and is as precise as possible in his point. Also coinciding with the fact the theme of the lecture may have taken on a number of themes, namely Jung) and secondly, Jordan actually clarifies why it’s the case: snakes were constantly a threat to our ancestors and, arguably, one of the factors which resulted in heightened awareness and self-consciousness, but was also so evident as to be carried within human narratives and myths across societies well after snakes stopped posing a threat (snake detection theory: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20445911.2011.629603) His relation to the snake with chaos and order is Judeo-Christian, going back to Zoroastrianism (and the theme of the snake as a representative of chaos, like water, is evident cross culturally). It’s a meta-narrative (so Jordan can hardly be seen as a post-modernist as he outlines this in his lectures and associates with it as a key teaching).

Concerning George Orwell’s Road to Wigan Pier, the point shown by Jordan is that Orwell observed that the typical middle-class socialist was not for helping the poor but being resentful of the rich. Magery Sabin shows that “Orwell does not wish merely to enumerate evils and injustices, but to break through what he regards as middle-class oblivion” (Margery Sabin, “The truths of experience: Orwell’s nonfiction of the 1930s”, in John Rodden (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell, 2007, p. 45.) That isn’t an implication to say Socialists are bad, in fact Jordan himself states that he was part of a Socialist organisation when he was younger, where individuals focused on helping the poor (compared to now where he claims that’s no longer the case and I agree with him, especially in partisan or radical groups that strive to say capitalism is bad but do not want to help those who need help).

History-wise, I have an masters in History and I keep up-to-date with the literature concerning my areas of expertise. Peterson is anachronistic in his historical interpretations, though, biblically, I would differentiate the new testament with the teachings to Christ to after his death/ascension to heaven, according to the gospels (unless there needs to be a debate about what constitutes Christ’s teachings when it’s not Christ teaching himself since Christ gave no dogmatic teaching in his ethics, so he cannot come across as misogynistic since he never advocated that or totalitarian) since there’s large historical precedence, and religious precedence, to why certain gospels were accepted, and others excluded (under Constantine and the council of Nicaea).

Finally, I do not think Jordan’s philosophy is to resonate in justifying the resentment of men. It’s there to come to terms with it and deal with it, not to act out on it. He uses moral narratives to justify that point. That’s why he talks about “radical honesty” as a means of addressing it using Jungian Psychology in conjunction with integrating the shadow.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBet_lgh4wc)

This is not to say there are not some things I’m in agreement with. I do agree with the point about the lobster and how it has been mis-used in terms of reference and the false claim about being part Native Canadian (though as said in the article, he is part of the same box, which would be the equivalent to and it is evident that the bond with Charles Joseph’s family is honest). The stuff about neuroscience and evolutionary biology is also questionable, though his points about Piaget, coinciding with research he’s said he’s done points more or less to neuroscience and neuroplacidity.

Other than this, I do not have any other issues with the article.

No, she does not say that there. She says it boils down to “what you look like,” i.e. how you express your gender. She merely takes the position if you do nothing “at all” to express your gender, it’s inappropriate to claim it. She had just finished explaining what I did to you: gender is a social construct, not a sex characteristic. It can thus be changed the same as parental status of children—her analogy!