Why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns – and why you shouldn’t either (Toronto Sun - Jordan Peterson) - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14739608
This discussion is probably the most hilarious one yet. Read the part about New York City if you're short on time, it's highlighted. :lol:

Why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns – and why you shouldn’t either

Jordan Peterson, Special to the Toronto Sun

First posted: Thursday, November 03, 2016 08:29 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, November 03, 2016 08:48 PM

In early October, I recorded a set of three videos about political correctness and posted them on my YouTube channel, Jordan Peterson Videos.

The first of these decried the latest legislative moves to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” protected categories under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

This set off a firestorm online and in the traditional media, particularly after a free-speech rally, organized by students, met with counter-protesters who tried to shut it down with white noise, chanted cries of “shame” and, finally, assault and deceit.

Perhaps three million people have watched the cellphone videos of these events online.

I noted in the videos that the policy statements surrounding similar laws already in place in Ontario and several other provinces were dangerously vague and ill-formulated. I also indicated my refusal to apply what have become known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).

I noted that under the new provisions of federal Bill C-16, now past second reading, discrimination for reasons of “gender identity” and “gender expression” has now become not only illegal, but part of the special category of hate crime.

Why exactly might that be a problem?

There are a plethora of reasons.

The first is that Bill C-16 and its sister laws at a provincial level constitute an entirely new form of legislation. In the past, legal restrictions limiting what citizens of this country can say have been put in place, most famously in laws regulating hate speech. I am not a fan of hate speech laws. I think that “hate” is not so easy to define, and that one man’s reasonable criticism can too easily become another man’s hated dialogue.

I also think it is better to have haters — or critics — up in the sunlight, so to speak, where corrective opposition can be generated, and public eye can be kept on their activities.

In any case, the new laws, to which I am objecting, take things one very dangerous step farther. For the first time, the government, advised by radical leftist social justice warriors, has decided what we must say, instead of what we can’t say. I believe this is extremely ill-advised. I believe it constitutes a serious restriction of free speech.

Since free speech is the mechanism by which we formulate problems, discuss their solution, and reach voluntary consensus, any act (particularly any legislative act) which constrains it is, at minimum, perilous.

I also objected to the requirement that I mouth words that have been produced by those pushing an ideology with which I strenuously and deeply disagree. I regard artificially formulated words such as the so-called “gender neutral” pronouns as part of the vanguard of a wave of political correctness which has historical roots that disturb me (the association with Marxism) and psychological motivations that I do not trust (based as they are on an excess of care best devoted to infants and grounded in an intense resentment of anyone who has become successful for any reason whatsoever).

On Oct. 3, the University of Toronto sent me a letter warning me about the potential illegality of my actions, and reminding me of my obligations to students as detailed in its own recent equity-based policies.

On Oct. 18, U of T sent me another letter requesting that I stop talking about such things.

The fact that my discussion may have already been rendered illegal by legislation of the type I was objecting to was precisely the point I had been originally making. When I first made the videos, several articles immediately appeared, penned by lawyers, stating that I was making too much of the dangers posed by federal Bill C-16 and its ilk.

However, as far as I am concerned, the letters from the University of Toronto indicated that my concerns were well-founded. Why else warn me that my actions potentially contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code? So much for the scare-mongering accusations.

In the aftermath of my comments, and their public criticism, I have also become aware of two other reasons why legislation such as Bill C-16 disturbs me — and should disturb everyone.

First is the sheer untenability of the request. I believe that when the formulators of Bill C-16 and the writers of the Ontario Human Rights Commission originally conceptualized the doctrine of “personal pronouns,” they had no idea that two genders would immediately mutate into, say, the more than 30 that now have legal protection in New York City.

In the Big Apple it is now a crime, punishable by fines of up to $250,000, to “misgender” someone. Perhaps our use of two pronouns, he and she, could be expanded to 2.1, or something like that. Perhaps we could even learn to use “they” to refer to persons who request it, because they do not fit well into the traditional categories.

But 30 is clearly impossible — and there are now lists that include many more so-called gender identities than 30. Thus, we appear to be in a position in Ontario where the government has made it a hate crime not to speak in an impossible manner. I don’t think anyone saw this coming.


The second additional reason is one, I think, of narcissism. A few days ago I was sitting with my wife and son trying to puzzle out exactly why the pronoun issues is so problematic. It’s not easy to think through. I use the pronouns I use because everyone else does. That’s how language works.

When suddenly put on the spot with regards to exactly why I do that, and not something else, I am rendered speechless. Justification of this sort has never been required previously. It’s convention, and it is not a simple manner to understand the evolution of or rationale for convention. But here’s what we came up with.

Civilized people present themselves in a manner that makes dealing with them simple. This is because each of us is only one person — but one person surrounded by a multitude of others. It is impossible for us to interact with that multitude, even one-on-one, without conventions that make each of us more straightforward than we are.

If I am interacting with a bank teller, for example, I do not want to know about his or her sexual proclivities, medical problems, financial issues, and past traumas. To do her job, she has to dress in a relatively innocuous manner, and present herself in way that enables particularized, efficient and relatively shallow interactions. That’s how society functions.

I might ask her, “How’s your day?” Depending on the genuineness of my request, she might share a bit of personal information. But there are strict implicit limits on how far she can (and should) go in revealing the person behind the persona.

It is simply not reasonable for a stranger — say, a student in one of my classes — to request that I learn, speak and remember a whole set of personal descriptors as a precondition for our interactions. It is certainly not reasonable to demand that I do so — and it is absolutely unreasonable for that demand to have been given the force of law. You don’t get to exercise control over my speech.

The demand for use of preferred pronouns is not an issue of equality, inclusion or respect for others. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a purposeful assault on the structure of language. It’s a dangerous incursion into the domain of free speech. It’s narcissistic self-centeredness. It’s part and parcel of the PC madness that threatens to engulf our culture.

A line must be drawn somewhere, and this is a good place to draw it. We should, further, abolish the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its enforcement wing, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. We should reject Bill C-16, and we should repeal its sister legislation in those provinces where it has already been instantiated.

We should refuse, in no uncertain terms, the demands by the ideologically possessed that we speak their special language. Or we should await the consequences, and they won’t be pretty.

— Peterson is a University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist

Toronto Sun


This debate is beyond hilarious and I think we should start using the descriptor: "their special little language". :lol:

Here is a debate between the professor in question and a transgender professor they dragged up in order to defend the indefensible:



At 6:00 the transgender professor tries to defend that the average person should know 30 pronouns or more in the name of common decency. His 'Ghost In The Shell' response is genuinely hilarious and slightly frightening. :knife: :lol:
#14739615
Relying on people not watching the video, eh? Actually the argument was that you can write it down in your smart phone. Or how about this: write it down on your role sheet. Or I have a crazy idea: call people by their name!

Although I will say that I'm not in agreement with codifying it as law, just as a code of conduct or possibly in the university's bylaws.
#14739617
This silly 60-some pronoun fad presents some problems for basic grammar. Verbs following a third person singular like he, she, it take -s or -es, such as He drives the car. A verb that follows plural pronouns like we and they as well as I and you doesn't. It's common parlance to use they (I do it fairly often) when there's no need to identify gender (this is useful in some professional settings where you are keeping the identity of a client, a student, or a peer confidential, but I've also used it in more informal settings), like This person I helped today told me that they drive a car, rather than This person I helped today told me that they drives a car (since they is used in the singular sense to refer to one particular person).

What happens when people insist they identify as multiple identities/beings and should be referred to in the plural sense (e.g. He drive the car rather than the correct He drives the car)? Or if they take on a plural gender but insist on verb forms that correspond to a singular pronoun? The current use of a pronoun such as they to refer to someone of an unspecified gender does use verb forms that continue to correspond to a plural pronoun, but how long until some idiot makes a big fuss out of using a plural pronoun and then complains about grammar rules concerning their chosen pronoun not referring to them as one single individual?
#14739622
In the Big Apple it is now a crime, punishable by fines of up to $250,000, to “misgender” someone.


As I said, criminally insane. Has anyone been fined yet?
#14739637
Bulaba Jones wrote:It's common parlance to use they (I do it fairly often) when there's no need to identify gender (this is useful in some professional settings where you are keeping the identity of a client, a student, or a peer confidential, but I've also used it in more informal settings), like This person I helped today told me that they drive a car, rather than This person I helped today told me that they drives a car (since they is used in the singular sense to refer to one particular person).


I do that too, even though I know while I'm doing it that it's grammatically incorrect, but it's less cumbersome than "he or she" will drive "his or her."

Which reminds me, oddly, of the way we order our adjectives without even being aware we're doing it.
#14739639
I do that too, even though I know while I'm doing it that it's grammatically incorrect, but it's less cumbersome than "he or she" will drive "his or her."

Which reminds me, oddly, of the way we order our adjectives without even being aware we're doing it.

I think you'll find you mean 'pronouns' rather than 'adjectives', anna.

/mansplaining

:excited:
#14739645
Potemkin wrote:I think you'll find you mean 'pronouns' rather than 'adjectives', anna.

/mansplaining

:excited:



:) No, I meant adjectives, which is why I said "oddly."

In the process of thinking about thinking about pronouns when they're usually used unthinkingly, I remembered an article I'd read about how we order our adjectives without realizing we always use a certain order. I went looking for the article, and found it:

http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/thi ... ernet.html
#14739649
Preferred pronouns is one of the things the left is going to have to give up in America now that they've lost the SCOTUS and are completely locked out of federal government and most state governments. :excited: There is no way for them to enforce the sillyness and it obviously isn't catching on with the common people.

I do however support the use of preferred pronouns on PoFo, so that people have to start calling me "his majesty" or maybe just "majesty" for short.
#14739653
:) No, I meant adjectives, which is why I said "oddly."

In the process of thinking about thinking about pronouns when they're usually used unthinkingly, I remembered an article I'd read about how we order our adjectives without realizing we always use a certain order. I went looking for the article, and found it:

http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/thi ... ernet.html

Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to the order of the pronouns in the phrase "he or she". My apologies, anna. :)

*tries to think of some other way of belittling anna's contribution to the thread.... fails....* :hmm:

;)
#14739655
I believe that when the formulators of Bill C-16 and the writers of the Ontario Human Rights Commission originally conceptualized the doctrine of “personal pronouns,” they had no idea that two genders would immediately mutate into, say, the more than 30 that now have legal protection in New York City.

It would be a lot simpler if they abolished grammatical gender, like there are no genders in the Hungarian language for example.
#14739658
In English you could get away with something like that as the language has been moving towards that direction, but in Greek, Italian, Spanish, French, German it would be impossible to remove grammatical gender as the entire language is genderised from the verb to the noun to the article to everything, IE languages are like that, English is the only one that has abolished many of these conventions, but again why do it anyway? These are no grounds to do such a thing.
#14739668
noemon wrote:why do it anyway? These are no grounds to do such a thing.

If it's so complicated to identify gender in NYC, why not abolish it then?

Image
"No genders inside the city walls!"

noemon wrote:In English you could get away with something like that as the language has been moving towards that direction, but in Greek, Italian, Spanish, French, German it would be impossible to remove grammatical gender as the entire language is genderised from the verb to the noun to the article to everything, IE languages are like that, English is the only one that has abolished many of these conventions, but again why do it anyway? These are no grounds to do such a thing.

Well, in Imperium Europa-Germanicum (right?) people should be germanised and the Germans should consider anglicising their language. ;)
#14739669
We seem to forget that the genders in language are based on sex, not gender.

But as a solution why not extend the use of it and its to also transgenders, non-genders, etc?! After a generation it won't sound ackward anymore and it would be much more sensible than adopting new pronouns and adjectives for each gender identity.
#14739674
No worries, I'm sure to provide you with ample future opportunities. :)

Excellent! :D

Err, I mean, I'm sure that your future brilliant contributions to the forum will all be unimpeachably correct and insightful, anna. :)
#14739676
Potemkin wrote:Excellent! :D


:lol: My first laugh of the day, thank you!

Err, I mean, I'm sure that your future brilliant contributions to the forum will all be unimpeachably correct and insightful, anna. :)


Oh, hell no... not a chance.

Honestly, though - I do love learning a new way of looking at things, so correct me as needed, and then I'll decide whether I'll take it under advisement. ;)
#14739678
Honestly, though - I do love learning a new way of looking at things, so correct me as needed, and then I'll decide whether I'll take it under advisement. ;)

It's a deal! 8)

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]