Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Relam

What do you think about Jordan B. Peterson

114 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RabidMongoose

I dont agree with all of JPs views because to me he comes across as someone who has actually never done a real job in his life. His theories dont match up with a lot of what I have seen with human hierarchies. Yet he continues to go on about lobster dominance hierarchies.

But his views on gender and identity politics are factually correct. They upset people, it has a history of attracting demonstrations against him on Campus, but that doesnt mean he is wrong. I`m all for free speech, we shouldn't be silencing factual truth because a segment of society get upset about it.

A man is a man, a woman is a woman, regardless of which bits and bobs they have cut off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

A man is a man, a woman is a woman, regardless of which bits and bobs they have cut off.

There is a metric **** ton of ACTUAL scientific research that unanimously shows that the human sexes are anything but binary:

Quote

Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia

Antiscientific sentiment bombards our politics, or so says the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW). Chief among these antiscientific sentiments, the IDW cites the rising visibility of transgender civil rights demands. To the IDW, trans people and their advocates are destroying the pillars of our society with such free-speech–suppressing, postmodern concepts as: “trans women are women,” “gender-neutral pronouns,” or “there are more than two genders.” Asserting “basic biology” will not be ignored, the IDW proclaims. “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

The irony in all this is that these “protectors of enlightenment” are guilty of the very behavior this phrase derides. Though often dismissed as just a fringe internet movement, they espouse unscientific claims that have infected our politics and culture. Especially alarming is that these “intellectual” assertions are used by nonscientists to claim a scientific basis for the dehumanization of trans people. The real world consequences are stacking up: the trans military ban, bathroom bills, and removal of workplace and medical discrimination protections, a 41-51 percent suicide attempt rate and targeted fatal violence . It’s not just internet trolling anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, scientific research helps us better understand the unique and real transgender experience. Specifically, through three subjects: (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology and (3) endocrinology. So, hold onto your parts, whatever they may be. It’s time for “the talk.”

...

While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. It is time that we acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing. The trans experience provides essential insights into the science of sex and scientifically demonstrates that uncommon and atypical phenomena are vital for a successful living system. 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

All of the necessary links to all peer-reviewed scientific studies are contained within the article above. Transgenderism and non-binary sexes are a real thing that has been overwhelmingly scientifically verified. To deny it's existence and insist there are only two genders regardless is akin to denying the earth to be round.

I'm well aware that @RabidMongoose will simply ignore the science I've laid out here and continue to perpetuate this 2 genders myth along with whatever other bulls**t speculations he happens to come up with, but I figured I'd nip this nonsense in the bud regardless. People shouldn't be allowed to spread misinformation without at least being called on it.

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I'm all for free speech, we shouldn't be silencing factual truth because a segment of society get upset about it.

Also just to state for the record: I'm also all for free speech, and JP as well as any other right-wing nut who wishes to spread misinformation and lies on college campuses should be allowed to do so. There should also in the spirit of free speech be an alloted time for rebuttals to debunk said lies.

Having said that, I understand the sentiments of those who do wish to shut down the spread of misinformation and other various falsehoods due to the inherent destructive nature such false beliefs tend to have on people. They're wrong to shut down the speakers of these lies rather than publicly challenge and debunk their bulls**t, but they aren't wrong that such views are destructive and that something should be done to stop such misinformation from spreading.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kittens Are Jerks
37 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Also just to state for the record: I'm also all for free speech, and JP as well as any other right-wing nut who wishes to spread misinformation and lies on college campuses should be allowed to do so. There should also in the spirit of free speech be an alloted time for rebuttals to debunk said lies.

Having said that, I understand the sentiments of those who do wish to shut down the spread of misinformation and other various falsehoods due to the inherent destructive nature such false beliefs tend to have on people. They're wrong to shut down the speakers of these lies rather than publicly challenge and debunk their bulls**t, but they aren't wrong that such views are destructive and that something should be done to stop such misinformation from spreading.

I see it this way:

rCUZGeo.png?1

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

There is a metric **** ton of ACTUAL scientific research that unanimously shows that the human sexes are anything but binary:

All of the necessary links to all peer-reviewed scientific studies are contained within the article above. Transgenderism and non-binary sexes are a real thing that has been overwhelmingly scientifically verified. To deny it's existence and insist there are only two genders regardless is akin to denying the earth to be round.

I'm well aware that @RabidMongoose will simply ignore the science I've laid out here and continue to perpetuate this 2 genders myth along with whatever other bulls**t speculations he happens to come up with, but I figured I'd nip this nonsense in the bud regardless. People shouldn't be allowed to spread misinformation without at least being called on it.

Also just to state for the record: I'm also all for free speech, and JP as well as any other right-wing nut who wishes to spread misinformation and lies on college campuses should be allowed to do so. There should also in the spirit of free speech be an alloted time for rebuttals to debunk said lies.

Having said that, I understand the sentiments of those who do wish to shut down the spread of misinformation and other various falsehoods due to the inherent destructive nature such false beliefs tend to have on people. They're wrong to shut down the speakers of these lies rather than publicly challenge and debunk their bulls**t, but they aren't wrong that such views are destructive and that something should be done to stop such misinformation from spreading.

Biologically speaking people have either male or female genitalia.

That is true in all cases except when we are talking about hermaphrodites. For hermaphrodites they can either choose to keep both or they can go one way or the other. If they keep both then I am happy for them to identify as transgender, because biologically they are. And if they decide to become male or female I am happy with that too and think they should be given all the support due to their unique biological situation.

I have a hard time believing you endorse free speech in the very same sentence that you refer to someone practicing free speech as a right-wing nut. You are letting your emotions run high there. And that for me is the main motivation for the hostility direct at JP. People cannot tolerate him having a different option to them, they take it personally, they get all emotional and flustered, and then they launch attacks at him trying to have him silenced.

We live in an era of identity politics where the first thing to be lost is truth and scientific fact. The regular LGBT person (and by regular I mean not a hermaphrodite) is not biologically the opposite sex, they have problems with their gender identity. A lot of people have identity disorders, there are a whole range of them out there. While I am compassionate towards people with identity issues, while I have nothing against society helping them, supporting them, and making sure they are included, for me personally I draw the line at the gay propaganda which seeks to normalise that specific identity disorder in society.

Jordan Peterson is a brave man, and he has my support on this one.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Biologically speaking people have either male or female genitalia.

That is true in all cases except when we are talking about hermaphrodites. For hermaphrodites they can either choose to keep both or they can go one way or the other.

As I just stated previously, you clearly would rather double down on objectively disproven falsehoods than accept reality. I've already thoroughly made the case for why transgenderism is a real thing. Ignore the facts all you want, it's still true regardless.

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

If they keep both then I am happy for them to identify as transgender, because biologically they are. And if they decide to become male or female I am happy with that too and think they should be given all the support due to their unique biological situation.

I think I speak for most transgender people when I say that whether or not "you're happy with them" means absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Think or feel however the F you want to about it dude. It won't change the fact that they exist, that there's real science behind it, and that all you're doing is peddling bigoted transphobic pseudoscientific bulls**t.

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I have a hard time believing you endorse free speech in the very same sentence that you refer to someone practicing free speech as a right-wing nut.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. Quite the opposite in fact. Sure, you have the right to freely say what you think. You can say whatever stupid, hateful, factually inaccurate lies and falsehoods you want to about anyone or anything. That doesn't mean that someone else doesn't also have the right to call you out on your bulls**t.

If you say something that makes you sound like the typical right-wing nut, then I won't censor your nuttiness, I'll just point out the flaws in your words and rightly call you a right-wing nut in kind.

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

You are letting your emotions run high there. And that for me is the main motivation for the hostility direct at JP. People cannot tolerate him having a different option to them, they take it personally, they get all emotional and flustered, and then they launch attacks at him trying to have him silenced.

Lol. I grew up with a narcissist and have experienced their abusive manipulation tactics first hand. So I'm well aware of their typical gaslighting tactics, such as what you're attempting to use right now.

Such tactics typically go as follows:

  • Narc: "Why are you so emotional?"
  • Me: "I'm not emotional. What do you mean?"
  • Narc: "See? Right there. The tone in your voice. You're clearly very emotional. What's wrong?"
  • Me: "Nothing's wrong. What tone? What are you talking about? I'm just confused on what exactly you're referring to here cause again, I'm not emotional."
  • Narc: "Whoa whoa whoa, calm down! No need to yell."
  • Me: "WTF? I wasn't yelling. I said that literally in the exact same tone of voice as when we starting talking. Where are you getting all this!?"
  • Narc: "I'm getting it from right now. You're yelling. You just yelled. You're extremely emotional for some reason."
  • Me: "Well of course I'm emotional NOW. You keep accusing me of s**t out of nowhere and insisting there's something wrong with me, when in reality I entered the room just now perfectly fine!!"
  • Narc: "Wow. You clearly have some serious emotional issues you need to sort out." 

I'm not all that emotional about this topic. I'm actually a straight white cisgendered male, so there's definately nothing personal here. I'm just being direct and to the point in thoroughly debunking your lies and misinformation. Any emotion you read into my words is merely you projecting said emotions onto me. No more, no less.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

We live in an era of identity politics where the first thing to be lost is truth and scientific fact.

Says the person ignoring the truth and scientific fact in favor of an identity politics transphobic agenda.

The irony is strong with this one.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

The regular LGBT person (and by regular I mean not a hermaphrodite) is not biologically the opposite sex, they have problems with their gender identity. A lot of people have identity disorders, there are a whole range of them out there.

Stop pretending as if you know or care about LGBTQ+ issues. You've already demonstrated that you don't.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I am compassionate towards people with identity issues

If you were compassionate towards them, then you wouldn't deny basic scientific facts about them in favor of transphobic nonsense that has already been thoroughly demonstrated to cause the trans community serious harm.

The only thing you've been able to demonstrate to us here, not only on this issue, but on multiple issues, is that if anything you seem to lack a significant degree of basic human empathy and compassion.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

while I have nothing against society helping them, supporting them, and making sure they are included, for me personally I draw the line at the gay propaganda which seeks to normalise that specific identity disorder in society.

"I support helping them, but I draw the line at helping them" is basically what you're saying here.

There is no "gay propaganda." Just scientific facts that you chose to ignore.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Jordan Peterson is a brave man, and he has my support on this one.

He's not brave, he's a transphobic bigoted idiot who completely misrepresented Canadian law and got famous because of it. That's why you support him. Cause you're no different than him in that respect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

1. As I just stated previously, you clearly would rather double down on objectively disproven falsehoods than accept reality. I've already thoroughly made the case for why transgenderism is a real thing. Ignore the facts all you want, it's still true regardless. I think I speak for most transgender people when I say that whether or not "you're happy with them" means absolutely nothing whatsoever.

2. Think or feel however the F you want to about it dude. It won't change the fact that they exist, that there's real science behind it, and that all you're doing is peddling bigoted transphobic pseudoscientific bulls**t.

3. Such tactics typically go as follows:

  • Narc: "Why are you so emotional?"
  • Me: "I'm not emotional. What do you mean?"
  • Narc: "See? Right there. The tone in your voice. You're clearly very emotional. What's wrong?"
  • Me: "Nothing's wrong. What tone? What are you talking about? I'm just confused on what exactly you're referring to here cause again, I'm not emotional."
  • Narc: "Whoa whoa whoa, calm down! No need to yell."
  • Me: "WTF? I wasn't yelling. I said that literally in the exact same tone of voice as when we starting talking. Where are you getting all this!?"
  • Narc: "I'm getting it from right now. You're yelling. You just yelled. You're extremely emotional for some reason."
  • Me: "Well of course I'm emotional NOW. You keep accusing me of s**t out of nowhere and insisting there's something wrong with me, when in reality I entered the room just now perfectly fine!!"
  • Narc: "Wow. You clearly have some serious emotional issues you need to sort out." 

I'm not all that emotional about this topic. I'm actually a straight white cisgendered male, so there's definately nothing personal here. I'm just being direct and to the point in thoroughly debunking your lies and misinformation. Any emotion you read into my words is merely you projecting said emotions onto me. No more, no less.

4. There is no "gay propaganda." Just scientific facts that you chose to ignore.

1. You are actually trying to argue that humans beings arent just born as biological males, females, or hermaphrodites.

2. There is no scientific evidence that anything other than binary biological sex + hermaphrodites exist.

3. When I read your comments I`m sure I`m not alone in seeing certain sections of it as emotional. Maybe its your communication style, with the word right-wing nut dropped a few times, and swear words, you give out the impression of being emotional.

4. Transgenderism isn't a biological sex except if we are talking about hermaphrodites who are biologically speaking both male and female. Biologically a man who has his member cut off is a man with his member cut off. Not a woman. If a woman has a member fashioned and attached, she is a woman with a member fashioned and attached. Not a man.

You are muddling up biological sex, with a persons choice to go through surgery and hormone pills to make themselves look like the opposite sex. Maybe you are a man who wants to be accepted as a woman? If so I would advise you work on why you need other people to accept your choice instead of needing everyone to ignore the obvious biology of human beings.

And the rather bizarre thing about it all is what does it really matter? Who cares if you are a man with your member cut off? Why the need to have people validate your new female identity? The hostility towards Jordan Peterson kind of shows that the issue is that people need the rest of society to validate their choice and new identity. But unfortunately, other people arent as interested in them as they like to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

1. You are actually trying to argue that humans beings arent just born as biological males, females, or hermaphrodites.

Yep, cause that's what the science indicates.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

2. There is no scientific evidence that anything other than binary biological sex + hermaphrodites exist.

Except of course all the scientific evidence I cited above that you're willfully choosing to ignore.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

3. When I read your comments I`m sure I`m not alone in seeing certain sections of it as emotional. Maybe its your communication style, with the word right-wing nut dropped a few times, and swear words, you give out the impression of being emotional.

I have a tendency to write with "voice," meaning I write in almost the exact way that I normally speak in person. I could chose to write in a more robotic tone, but I just naturally cuss and call people "dude" and whatnot, so writing that way just comes natural for me. That doesn't mean I'm emotional, it just means I'm authentic.

I'm just directly and assertively telling you what I legitimately think with no filter. If I say there's no emotion here, I pretty much mean it. Only emotion that I can think of me having here in my responses to you is some mild annoyance with your willful ignorance. Beyond that, not much else.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

4. Transgenderism isn't a biological sex except if we are talking about hermaphrodites who are biologically speaking both male and female. Biologically a man who has his member cut off is a man with his member cut off. Not a woman. If a woman has a member fashioned and attached, she is a woman with a member fashioned and attached. Not a man.

You are muddling up biological sex, with a persons choice to go through surgery and hormone pills to make themselves look like the opposite sex. 

Again, I've already linked an article with a myriad of scientific studies and articles within that prove otherwise. You just asserting the opposite of what's already been scientifically established over and over again won't just magically make it true.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Maybe you are a man who wants to be accepted as a woman? If so I would advise you work on why you need other people to accept your choice instead of needing everyone to ignore the obvious biology of human beings.

I know that this is most likely a radical and strange concept for you to even imagine, but bear with me here: It's possible for someone to support the equal rights and fair treatment of people of a different people group than your own. I don't have to be a woman to support women's rights, and I don't have to be black to support equal rights for blacks, etc.

I'm a cisgendered white heterosexual male, and I support LGBTQ+ rights despite not personally being a member of that community. I know that's hard for you to imagine that anyone would support something that doesn't personally benefit them in some way, but people do that sorta all the time. I believe it's called "not being a self-centered dick."

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

And the rather bizarre thing about it all is what does it really matter? Who cares if you are a man with your member cut off? Why the need to have people validate your new female identity? The hostility towards Jordan Peterson kind of shows that the issue is that people need the rest of society to validate their choice and new identity. But unfortunately, other people arent as interested in them as they like to think.

It matters because:

  1. The science is clear that gender is non-binary, transgenderism is a real thing, so denying it is ignoring well established scientific fact.
  2. Denying the existence of such facts has also conclusively been shown to have a severe negative adverse affect of such people who classify as such.

I know you keep ignoring whatever scientific data is given to you, but for the purpose of backing up point number 2 (since you might've missed that part), I'll simply re-quote from the same article I posted above the part with various links to scientific studies that further validates this point:

Quote

The real world consequences are stacking up: the trans military ban, bathroom bills, and removal of workplace and medical discrimination protections, a 41-51 percent suicide attempt rate and targeted fatal violence . It’s not just internet trolling anymore.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Jordan Peterson's pseudoscientific transphobic bulls**t has a proven adverse negative effect on the trans community, and you sitting here perpetuating the same bulls**t has the same proven negative effect on them as well.

I know you don't care, since you've expressed on multiple occasions how you really want to do evil to people for "experimental" purposes (aka, for s**ts and giggles), but you asked why it matters and so now I've told you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
58 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

1. Yep, cause that's what the science indicates.

2. I know that this is most likely a radical and strange concept for you to even imagine, but bear with me here: It's possible for someone to support the equal rights and fair treatment of people of a different people group than your own. I don't have to be a woman to support women's rights, and I don't have to be black to support equal rights for blacks, etc.

3. I'm a cisgendered white heterosexual male, and I support LGBTQ+ rights despite not personally being a member of that community. I know that's hard for you to imagine that anyone would support something that doesn't personally benefit them in some way, but people do that sorta all the time. I believe it's called "not being a self-centered dick."

4. The science is clear that gender is non-binary, transgenderism is a real thing, so denying it is ignoring well established scientific fact.

1. Thats the most insane answer to any question I have ever asked on UM. Please complete this sentence `men have male genitals, women have female genitals, hermaphrodites have a merge of both, and an example of another biological sex is ……………`. I am really interested and curious as to what your answer will be. I sincerely hope you are just mixing up gender identity with biological sex or that you have been abducted and probed by aliens or something. Otherwise goodness knows what you parents taught you as a child. I am really concerned for you over this, you really do worry me.

2. So by not believing in your fantasy about extra biological sexes I have a problem treating others equally? Nice.

3. Nope sorry, you lost me with that. Do you mean you were born as a normal heterosexual male? Why can`t you just say that?

4. Transgenderism is not a biological sex, its when someone has their bits and bobs altered because they want to have the genitals of the opposite sex. And they arent real genitals either, they are plastic surgery attempts to mimic them. Hence, transgenderism is when a person develops the wrong gender identity for the biological sex and takes steps to try and become like that biological sex.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

@RabidMongoose

Do you agree that men tend to be generally attracted to women that have an hourglass shape to their figure?

Do you agree that women tend to be generally attracted to men with an inverted triangle shape to their figure?

If yes to both then you must know that these are (barring social/environmental  factors) instincts inherited in our DNA. Well sometimes these instincts switch around a little, or more. Meaning someone can be born one gender physically, but not have the instincts associated with born said gender. 

I put it as simple as I could. It's a real thing. I agree if a male child picks up a Barbie doll, it should not be assumed they are trans. They will figure it out as they grow older if they are.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

1. Thats the most insane answer to any question I have ever asked on UM.

This is literally no different than having someone say "the earth is round" and then a flat earther responds with: "That's the most insane thing I've ever seen someone say!!"

It's an objective well established scientific fact. If you don't like that fact, then your issue is with the numerous scientific studies and scientists who confirm this. Your issue is not with me.

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Please complete this sentence `men have male genitals, women have female genitals, hermaphrodites have a merge of both, and an example of another biological sex is ……………`.  I am really interested and curious as to what your answer will be. 

I won't complete the sentence because the sentence itself represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the science being presented here.

Gender, as well as sexual orientation and other things of the sort, are on a wide open spectrum. You can't just fit people into various boxes and slap a label on it and expect it to be 100% accurate.

Generally speaking, we use binary linguistics to refer to the majority of the population as either male or female, because in a very broad general sense, most people could accurately fall into these arbitrary categories we've named for ourselves. It simply makes communication with one another on such topics a lot easier, even if it's not 100% scientifically accurate. However when you go into examining the science of genetics and other biological fields related to this topic, it becomes apparent that things aren't always as they seem.

Think of it like the color spectrum. You could say that there are separate individual colors like red, yellow, and blue. But But saying that there are only those 3 colors in existence is just provably false. There are different shades of red, yellow, and blue. There's various blends of said colors with other colors. There are colors that aren't even colors, and are just black and white and the various shades of grey in-between. There are even colors outside most human's visibility range. To say there are only 3 colors is just flat out ridiculous. The same is true with gender.

Listen to this article's explanation from National Geographic:

Quote

Many of us learned in high school biology that sex chromosomes determine a baby’s sex, full stop: XX means it’s a girl; XY means it’s a boy. But on occasion, XX and XY don’t tell the whole story.

Today we know that the various elements of what we consider “male” and “female” don’t always line up neatly, with all the XXs—complete with ovaries, vagina, estrogen, female gender identity, and feminine behavior—on one side and all the XYs—testes, penis, testosterone, male gender identity, and masculine behavior—on the other. It’s possible to be XX and mostly male in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology, just as it’s possible to be XY and mostly female.

Each embryo starts out with a pair of primitive organs, the proto-gonads, that develop into male or female gonads at about six to eight weeks. Sex differentiation is usually set in motion by a gene on the Y chromosome, the SRY gene, that makes the proto-gonads turn into testes. The testes then secrete testosterone and other male hormones (collectively called androgens), and the fetus develops a prostate, scrotum, and penis. Without the SRY gene, the proto-gonads become ovaries that secrete estrogen, and the fetus develops female anatomy (uterus, vagina, and clitoris).

But the SRY gene’s function isn’t always straightforward. The gene might be missing or dysfunctional, leading to an XY embryo that fails to develop male anatomy and is identified at birth as a girl. Or it might show up on the X chromosome, leading to an XX embryo that does develop male anatomy and is identified at birth as a boy.

Genetic variations can occur that are unrelated to the SRY gene, such as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), in which an XY embryo’s cells respond minimally, if at all, to the signals of male hormones. Even though the proto-gonads become testes and the fetus produces androgens, male genitals don’t develop. The baby looks female, with a clitoris and vagina, and in most cases will grow up feeling herself to be a girl.

...

Gender is an amalgamation of several elements: chromosomes (those X’s and Y’s), anatomy (internal sex organs and external genitals), hormones (relative levels of testosterone and estrogen), psychology (self-defined gender identity), and culture (socially defined gender behaviors). And sometimes people who are born with the chromosomes and genitals of one sex realize that they are transgender, meaning they have an internal gender identity that aligns with the opposite sex—or even, occasionally, with neither gender or with no gender at all.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/

And if you want a more in-depth scientific breakdown of the science of the gender spectrum, I'll also leave you this scholarly article from Harvard University here:

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

Just because you don't understand the science, personally disagree with the science, or want to just ignore the science altogether, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I sincerely hope you are just mixing up gender identity with biological sex or that you have been abducted and probed by aliens or something. Otherwise goodness knows what you parents taught you as a child.

I was raised in a deeply conservative fundamentalist Christian household, with a narcissistic mother and an absent father, and was never taught any of this science of the gender spectrum. Gender being binary was simply assumed.

I don't know how or why I despite all this ended up swimming upstream and forging my own path contrary to how I was taught, but somehow I did. Regardless, I've pretty much always to some degree or another valued the truth and facts over falsehoods, and valued the general health and well being of other people. Therefore when I was presented with the scientific facts regarding the gender spectrum, I adjusted my beliefs accordingly to better fit with reality.

Also, pathetic smack talk like the bolded part of your quote above accomplishes nothing but make you look childish and petty.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I am really concerned for you over this, you really do worry me.

LOL. Stop with the concern trolling dude. :lol: 

Definition from Google:

Quote
con·cern trol·ling
noun
INFORMALDEROGATORY
  1. the action or practice of disingenuously expressing concern about an issue in order to undermine or derail genuine discussion.

Those kinds of tactics won't work on me. I've lived through hearing that kind of s**t my entire life.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

2. So by not believing in your fantasy about extra biological sexes I have a problem treating others equally? Nice.

Yes. Transgender and gender non-binary individuals do exist, and you can't treat them equally if you don't even so much as acknowledge their existence in the first place.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

3. Nope sorry, you lost me with that. Do you mean you were born as a normal heterosexual male? Why can`t you just say that?

Well first off, transgender and gender non-binary individuals ARE a "normal" occurance in nature. They may not be as prevalent as cisgendered heterosexuals, but they do exist.

And secondly, it seems as though you're intentionally trying to use insulting language towards these individuals out of some irrational resentment towards them. I can't think of any other reason why you'd intentionally chose to use such passive-aggressive language towards them, apart from you simply being a narcissist who lacks any self-awareness.

3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

4. Transgenderism is not a biological sex, its when someone has their bits and bobs altered because they want to have the genitals of the opposite sex. And they arent real genitals either, they are plastic surgery attempts to mimic them. Hence, transgenderism is when a person develops the wrong gender identity for the biological sex and takes steps to try and become like that biological sex.

I've already explained the science a multitude of times, and linked you to several scientific and scholarly sources for you to read at your leisure. Feel free to read up and learn what it actually is. Cause at this point, I won't repeat myself on this topic any further.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 10/23/2019 at 8:29 AM, Aquila King said:

There is a metric **** ton of ACTUAL scientific research that unanimously shows that the human sexes are anything but binary:

Thanks for that, some interesting studies there from what I have read so far. The problem you have here is that the transphobic group tend to belong to a larger overall group that is often known for being decidedly anti intellectual. Including religious based bigotry (the very definition of anti intellectual).

There are cultures that traditionally accept a "third gender" and I have seen them and met such people. They are accepted as a normal part of and valuable member of the society without any bigotry at all. The old western based anthropological ideas regarding this is slowly being overturned academically, sometimes by academic transgender people themselves.

I often wonder if, in amongst all of the bigotry, there isn't an element of fear at it's basis. Similar to the more virulent homophobes who basically seem to be announcing their own doubts and insecurities lol, perhaps those insecure of their own masculinity is a larger group that previously thought? No doubt there can be many other reasons of course.

I don't really even require the science to accept transgenderism as a real existent part of nature, any more than I would the obvious fact that there are gay people. Extending basic rights to such people seems to only require a very basic level of compassion and understanding.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
11 minutes ago, Horta said:

I often wonder if, in amongst all of the bigotry, there isn't an element of fear at it's basis. Similar to the more virulent homophobes who basically seem to be announcing their own doubts and insecurities lol, perhaps those insecure of their own masculinity is a larger group that previously thought? No doubt there can be many other reasons of course.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. 

I think a lot of men view LGBTQ+ people as a threat to their own toxic views of "masculinity." They have their own cultural idea of what it means to "be a man," and therfore anyone who doesn't conform is essentially a disgrace to the idea of manhood itself. To accept trans people, you'd have to accept that it's okay for a "man" to express themselves in a stereotypically non-manly way, which goes against literally everything they've grown up being taught.

Thankfully with more younger generations, people are more accepting of individual self-expression from everyone. I don't think the bigotry will ever die out completely, but I do expect it to become gradually less culturally acceptable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
On 10/21/2019 at 11:20 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual spewing paranoid and conspiratorial political theories, pseudo-scientific nonsense, bigotry and misogyny. No surprise that his audiences tend to be incel-heavy. His statements may sound intelligent, but on closer examination they are little more than purposely ambiguous gibberish. In other words, he's full of ****.

This sounded a bit hyperbolic at first, but it doesn't take much of a look into what Peterson is really claiming to begin finding your summation far more reasonable.

While the "enforced speech" objection seems fair enough, hopefully there are/will be far more intelligent people than Peterson tasked with looking at such aspects.

If we look at what Peterson is claiming overall, there are good reasons to wonder if he is really being genuine here. The more you look at his claims the more he appears to simply be another right wing religious fanatic. He is unlikely to cause a ripple amongst academics as it's the same old chestnut of the fundamentalists...that morals derive from god, atheism is responsible for our worst dictatorships and so on. The sort of stuff that has been endlessly debunked, though he gives it all a different set of quasi intellectual and obscurantist clothes. He seems to hate anything he considers as "leftist" with a passion.

His religious views can take some time to gain any sort of understanding of, particularly because he goes to some lengths to be evasive and obscure. Some might (and have) say he can be deceptive. It also appears he uses a different version of the English language to everyone else. While it's not unusual for academics to have different understanding of certain words, usually this has a basis that is well understood and agreed upon. He seems to do it in a way that is not only deceptive, but very consistent with many cults (where it is also very common).

For instance his definition of the word "truth" amounts to whatever aids in reproductive viability, or basically whatever increasing your chances of reproduction. There seems no other definition he will accept for this word (although when convenient it can mean something different entirely lol) and it can be exceptionally difficult to get him to offer up anything other than a long winded and obscure diatribe as explanation. The mere mention that his definitions appear non standard usually has him feigning incredulity that anyone could believe it means anything else lol. He also claims that religion is "what people act out". Therefore, anyone who isn't in a coma... is religious... in his rather off beat and fanatically held doctrine. This is because people don't know what they believe (according to Peterson) as they are too complex. A type of nullius in verba/ acta no verba which applies to everyone except himself of course, as he has special powers? Presumably picking your nose or taking a dump are literally part of your religion. The decisions of which one to do first result from your "hierarchy of values" of which the highest = god.

It's worth giving this some thought. For instance how would his version of "truth" relate to transgender (or gay) people? Surely his most basic and fundamental religious beliefs would have such people as being devoid of any truth at all, as a starting point? Take it from there and see where it ends up. This ends up appearing no more reasonable than ignorant and bigoted beliefs based on the old testament. 

It really does start to appear less an academic work, and more of a fantasy cult doctrine. The fallacies in his claims are legion, he also often seems vague on the physical science that he intermingles at times (as you might expect for someone whose work is almost entirely hypothetical/philosophical based). I think there are in fact better cult doctrines (read a few lol) that are generally accepted as having spawned brainwashing cults. Some of them are at least interesting and far more thought provoking than this, despite also being nonsense.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta

Perhaps anyone who follows Peterson (kudos for being able to stay awake) could explain this further? I have heard Peterson claim the above in what are surely for him, exceptionally rare moments of brevity and candour.

I realise he isn't asking for people to be stoned at the city gates, but how can his religious doctrine arrive at anything other than a negative stereotypically fundamentalist view of transgender (and gay) people, as a starting point? How could it do anything thing other than encourage bigotry?

Surely there is not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from religious based bigotry?

It also seems that Peterson overlooks the many simple facts that contradict almost his entire doctrine, and even allowing his largesse with language, it doesn't seem to gel with him that much of what he espouses as factual, are not things that exist in nature, as much as concepts..philosophically derived ideas.

As with most crank intellectual works, it seems very obvious he has started with conclusions and looked for ways to verify his conclusions (or to satisfy a fan base).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta

 

Here's a couple of short you tube explanations re Peterson's nonsensical claims. This young fella is quite admirable in the way he tries to avoid anything that could be seen as ad hominem. Though in doing so, and possibly because of time constraints, I think he was also far too kind to some of his work.

 

 

 

ps. Some more critique.

https://quillette.com/2018/07/23/the-peculiar-opacity-of-jordan-petersons-religious-views/

Edited by Horta
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
15 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said:

@RabidMongoose

Do you agree that men tend to be generally attracted to women that have an hourglass shape to their figure?

Do you agree that women tend to be generally attracted to men with an inverted triangle shape to their figure?

If yes to both then you must know that these are (barring social/environmental  factors) instincts inherited in our DNA. Well sometimes these instincts switch around a little, or more. Meaning someone can be born one gender physically, but not have the instincts associated with born said gender. 

I put it as simple as I could. It's a real thing. I agree if a male child picks up a Barbie doll, it should not be assumed they are trans. They will figure it out as they grow older if they are.

I can only comment personally on what I find attractive as a man and that would most closely match an hourglass figure. But lets be frank, if she is female and has a pretty face then I`m interested on some level lol.

Your comment is exactly the same point I am making. Biological sex is different from sexual instinct. There are only 2 sexes (we best count those that have gone wrong too). The urges in a persons mind, and their identity, are something separate. That is not biological, that is contents of the mind.

I dont understand why that is such an emotive topic for some people. Why the insistence on pretending sexual preference and sexual identity are a biological sex? I really dont get it. Its PC gone bonkers.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

There are only two genders. Sorry if you don't agree with it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I think you hit the nail on the head here. 

I think a lot of men view LGBTQ+ people as a threat to their own toxic views of "masculinity." They have their own cultural idea of what it means to "be a man," and therfore anyone who doesn't conform is essentially a disgrace to the idea of manhood itself. To accept trans people, you'd have to accept that it's okay for a "man" to express themselves in a stereotypically non-manly way, which goes against literally everything they've grown up being taught.

Thankfully with more younger generations, people are more accepting of individual self-expression from everyone. I don't think the bigotry will ever die out completely, but I do expect it to become gradually less culturally acceptable.

I`m struggling to get my head around your points of view.

When it comes to myself I am male, I enjoy being a man, and doing manly things. It has nothing to do with seeing anything different as a threat to my masculinity. I like, I enjoy, and I am happy being a man. If a man wants to wear a dress and put on makeup then its a free world. What has his decision got to do with me? It says nothing about me, so why would it be a threat?

Throughout this debate I have noticed a trend going on with you. It seems you have an inability to separate two different things from each other. For you there is no distance between biological sex and adopted sexual gender (through surgery and hormones). And when it comes to identity there is no gap between separate people either. As a result you think other people determine what you are.

There are differences going on between my psychology and yours. My cogs go around differently than yours. Please can I ask if you have autism or narcissism?

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
17 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There are only two genders. Sorry if you don't agree with it. 

I have never been in a gym changing room or taken a pretty woman home and gone `what the hell is that?`

Maybe aliens have a third type of genitals but human beings dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I honestly don't care if a person wants to mutilate their body for the illusion of something they will never truly be. Isn't my life, and I don't care. I just don't like the idea of forced acceptance. I'd rather accept someone based on their character rather than their "identity", plus I'm sick of all this "toxic" masculity crap. Guess that's the result of fatherless homes. Kids never get exposed to what a real man/father is. Rather sad. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I honestly don't care if a persin wants to mutilate their body for the illusion of something they will never truly be. Isn't my life, and I don't care. I just don't like the idea of forced acceptance. I'd rather accept someone based on their character rather than their "identity", plus I'm sick of all this "toxic" masculity crap. Guess that's the result of fatherless homes. Kids never get exposed to what a real man/father is. Rather sad. 

There is a drive in our culture to emasculate men for some reason.

I think the best thing would be to make sure our kids arent exposed to this rubbish. Parental Control over TV, magazines, and the internet, is a very good thing.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Just now, RabidMongoose said:

There is a drive in our culture to emasculate men for some reason.

I think the best thing would be to make sure our kids arent exposed to this rubbish. Parental Control over TV, magazines, and the internet, is a very good thing.

No tv, no internet (except for school) and no magazines. Teach the kids stoicism at a young age so they can better handle life's disappointments. 

The idea of being a man to some of us is responsiblity: personal, family, financial, and social. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RabidMongoose
2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

No tv, no internet (except for school) and no magazines. Teach the kids stoicism at a young age so they can better handle life's disappointments. 

The idea of being a man to some of us is responsiblity: personal, family, financial, and social. 

I think its better to let them have access to the media.

But to control it until they have developed the maturity to be able to spot threats to their self-image, self-esteem, and identity. Stoicism is good but I would choose mindfulness. They also have to experience both winning and losing at things. Being the best at something and not being the best. Succeeding and failing.

But I think its also important to get them interested in learning so they are more likely to go all the way to university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

I'm struggling to get my head around your points of view.

As I've stated previously, my "point of view" here is for the most part just me explaining well established scientific facts to you. If you struggle to understand what I'm telling you then your issue isn't with me, it's with the science itself.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

When it comes to myself I am male, I enjoy being a man, and doing manly things. It has nothing to do with seeing anything different as a threat to my masculinity. I like, I enjoy, and I am happy being a man. If a man wants to wear a dress and put on makeup then its a free world. What has his decision got to do with me? It says nothing about me, so why would it be a threat?

Studies show that those who insist on placing people into stereotypical categories, rather than viewing people as each being a completely unique individual on a spectrum of defining characteristics, tend to have a wide range of insecurities and feel perceived threats to their own defined categories they've placed themselves in:

Quote

Recent research in social cognition has revealed the importance of stereotypes as cognitive categories for imposing order and predictability on the world. Some people feel the need for categorization so strongly that they increase their liking for a person simply because she or he labels another as homosexual. Homosexual persons who violate stereotypical expectations (e.g., masculine gay men and feminine lesbians) may actually be disliked. Such nonconformity may not be noticed, however, since labeling itself can lead people to perceive stereotypical behaviors, whether or not they occur. . . .

It frequently is assumed that feelings of personal threat result in strong negative attitudes toward homosexuality, whereas lack of threat leads to neutral or positive attitudes. This perspective often is associated with the term homophobia, and it derives from a psychodynamic view that prejudiced attitudes serve to reduce tension aroused by unconscious conflicts.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/overview.html

Your refusal to recognize people as individuals who rest on a spectrum, and insistence that people conform to specified categories of "male" and "female" and "intersex" (you use the more hateful word hermaphrodite) speaks to your general subconscious fear and insecurity that you and others must conform to certain pre-determined specified boundaries, each with their own set of unified stereotypical definable characteristics.

In other words, the only reason you insist on there only being 2 or 3 genders is because your view of masculinity is twisted and rooted in a certain subconscious degree of fear and insecurity. Various studies lay that out.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Throughout this debate I have noticed a trend going on with you. It seems you have an inability to separate two different things from each other. For you there is no distance between biological sex and adopted sexual gender (through surgery and hormones). And when it comes to identity there is no gap between separate people either.

What I have is the inability (or rather personal choice and outright refusal) to attempt to neatly and succinctly categorize people into various categories, and then stereotype them with those category's pre-defined set of characteristics. I view people as individuals, each with their own unique set of characteristics, and I view all of humanity as being a part of one big whole.

There really just is no way to describe what you're doing here other than calling it a form of bigotry. Rather than view people as individuals, you chose to view people as belonging to separate categories with labels, and then assume certain traits and characteristics to exist with that person based on those labels.

In your view: There are men, there are women, and men / women have naturally masculine / feminine traits; and no matter what that person says or does, if they were born into a category that you've arbitrarily defined, then they still belong to that arbitrary category no matter what they happen to say or do. That is the literal definition of bigotry.

Rather than view a trans or non-binary individual as an individual on a spectrum, you chose to fit them in categories of "male" or "female," and say that they are that category no matter what they say or do. Usually also with certain definable traits and characteristics assumed from them based on that arbitrary category.

1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

As a result you think other people determine what you are.

Absolutely not. If anything that's what you're doing here.

People are just people, and whatever defining characteristics they may have are determined by that individual. No more, no less.

To use an example: You can attempt to categorize certain people as "black people" and "white people," and in a general sense you may be correct. However what happens when someone is mixed with both "white" and "black" DNA? Are they "white?" Are they "black?" How white and black are they? How much of their whiteness or blackness determines their behaviors if at all? 

See, skin pigmentation is itself another spectrum. "White people" and "black people" are an entirely man-made social construct, created out of old-school racism and bigotry. While you may be able to accurately fit many people into those two categories, at the end of the day there are plenty of people who fit into both categories, or neither category, or more of one category and less of another, etc.

Saying that there are two genders - male and female, may genuinely adequately describe the majority of the populace, however there are plenty of people who don't fit into either category, and are just completely unique individuals existing on the spectrum.

You seriously need to stop trying to categorize and stereotype people, and start viewing every single person on earth as belonging to one single group called the human race, and viewing each individual person as an individual through and through.

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

There are differences going on between my psychology and yours. My cogs go around differently than yours.

Perhaps your brain is just naturally wired this way. Or perhaps you think the way you do as some sort of learned behavior that could easily be rewired to view this accurately. I don't know.

But what I will say is that regardless of why you think the way you do, your thinking here is objectively wrong because it does not line up with science here. If you genuinely care about the truth and scientific fact, then I implore you to actually study the science itself so you can get a better grasp of the topic at hand here.

2 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Please can I ask if you have autism or narcissism?

If anything you're the one displaying narcissistic personality traits, so your asking that is simply projection. That, plus you've heard myself and others call you that before, so you're playing the petty game of throwing the exact same accusation towards other people in return.

As for autism, I've actually had a thorough psychological assessment done on me from a doctorate degree psychologist. The only things I've been diagnosed with are PTSD, ADD, various forms of anxiety, and depression. Nothing even close to autism or any personality disorders have ever even remotely come close to being suggested or diagnosed to me throughout my many years of mental health treatment.

You're just throwing out mental health conditions as a petty smear tactic towards the person making arguments you don't like and disagree with, rather than actually address the arguments themselves being presented.

That's also actually quite shameful of you to do considering there are many positives to autism as well, yet you use the condition just for the purpose of throwing out a petty smear. Shame on you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

There are only two genders. Sorry if you don't agree with it. 

Xeno, don't ever pretend to support science and reason over fairy tails and superstition ever again. Not if you're gonna chose to ignore science in favor of provably false BS rubbish like this.

You're only anti-God and anti-spiritualism/paranormal etc because you don't like it or personally disagree with it. When you make statements like this, it shows you're not favoring the sciences, you're just favoring a pre-set narrative and worldview that you believe in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.