jordan peterson

  On 2/12/2018 at 7:27 PM, autopilot said:

The kind of person who would dye their hair green and chop off their genitals, or walk around crossdressing and insisting people call them made up words, obviously have extremely poor judgement.  Job creators should have the right to discriminate based on that.

Because of where the Canadian Human Rights Act applies - federally regulated activities (so federal employees, the provision of goods and services at a federal level).

The Ontario Human Rights Code (which Peterson doesn't seem to have complained about much at all before 2016, even though it was amended to included discrimination on a gender identity/expression basis in 2012) would govern the University of Toronto, where Peterson is employed (rather gainfully I would add) and continues to enjoy the protections afforded to him under the same Code.

As a private person, you are free to discriminate against whoever you like, providing you are not advocating genocide or publicly inciting hatred against groups identified in the Criminal Code.

Also please note that freedom of expression in Canada is slightly different than freedom of speech in the US (not extravagantly so, but there are some differences)

Pete: the bit you italicized just means you can't discriminate against someone who's committed a crime but has received a pardon or a record suspension with respect to the crime.

  On 2/12/2018 at 8:02 PM, chenGOD said:

Pete: the bit you italicized just means you can't discriminate against someone who's committed a crime but has received a pardon or a record suspension with respect to the crime.

  On 2/12/2018 at 7:27 PM, autopilot said:

The kind of person who would dye their hair green and chop off their genitals, or walk around crossdressing and insisting people call them made up words, obviously have extremely poor judgement.  Job creators should have the right to discriminate based on that.

you're drawing a relationship where there isn't really one. job 'creators' have a right to judge by professional criteria who is fit for a position or not, and a person hair colour or sexual preferences do not speak to those. how is what you're saying any different to refusing to hire, say, a gay person?

I guess you're probably thinking that "unusual" personal preferences like those might constitute signs of mental unhealthiness, for which there is limited argument (gender dysphoria), and that might be used to determine that a person is unfit for a job. however, I'd argue that nobody's mental health is perfect and that, rather than have unrealistic hiring standards, it should be taken into account a bit more humanely as people can excel in their roles even if they have personal problems.

I actually think mental health should be on the broader corporate agenda as a specific item to pay attention to in an organisation's professional development initiatives. but most bosses are find that too icky to accept.

That's a very reasonable way to put it Usagi. IMO.

Btw, your comment RE mental health/wellness: mental health and psychosocial hazards have been a main topic at all of the HR and EHS expos and conferences I've gone to in the last few years, but the workplaces are slow to change. Our provincial OHS act/regs/code is changing later this years to finally include some mental health provisions.

Edit: ^ useless observation unrelated to JP sorry

^ my experience has been that there are very practical important distinctions between HR areas and the standards they are meant to enforce. mental health might be a proper, legislated OHS item, but in practice HR exists to defend the organisation from its employees and from the legal repercussions of the organisation's poor decisions on its employees.

what I'm saying is that HR are mostly useless, lying cunts.

In general, yeah. Agreed.

There are very few HR professionals that believe in and enforce a people first policy. 

  On 2/13/2018 at 3:17 AM, usagi said:

 

you're drawing a relationship where there isn't really one. job 'creators' have a right to judge by professional criteria who is fit for a position or not, and a person hair colour or sexual preferences do not speak to those. how is what you're saying any different to refusing to hire, say, a gay person?

 

Well there's an important distinction there... it is a fabulously gay tube-tob wearing, lisp-accentuating flamer, or a suit-and-tie-wearing real-estate-king type gay?  The former should definitely be allowed to be discriminated against by any employer who doesn't want to provide an unnerving customer service experience.  In the case of non-binary spectrum clowns, the only business I can think of that'd benefit from bringing one of them on board would be a business whose product is turning kids queer.  Or maybe some kind of haunted house / side show attraction thing.

The pseudo-science behind the gender spectrum and the 78 new Facebook gender identities is so dodgy and lacking in methodology that we shouldn't be revising laws to give protection to classes that were made up a few years ago in the peak of politically correct ideological madness.  What was considered a tragic mental disorder that required a good deal of psychological intervention a few years ago is now the new progressive civil rights frontier for the radical left.  It doesn't mean it's beneficial to society to normalize and encourage it, especially when it statistically ends in suicide half the time.  That alone shows there's obviously something glaringly pathological about the whole thing.  When coupled with the "the more victim you are the more valuable you are" leftist culture, it's unfortunately causing the ideological contagion to spread like wildfire among the youth.

The actual public conversation the LGB community should be having right now is a disavowal of these insane people who don't believe in objective reality or biology that hijacked their tolerance movement.  And before anyone accuses me of ___phobia or ___ism, I'm speaking here as someone who has had relations with both of the two actual genders.

Some comedy to cleanse the palette:

  On 2/13/2018 at 6:25 PM, autopilot said:

Well there's an important distinction there... it is a fabulously gay tube-tob wearing, lisp-accentuating flamer, or a suit-and-tie-wearing real-estate-king type gay?  The former should definitely be allowed to be discriminated against by any employer who doesn't want to provide an unnerving customer service experience.  In the case of non-binary spectrum clowns, the only business I can think of that'd benefit from bringing one of them on board would be a business whose product is turning kids queer.  Or maybe some kind of haunted house / side show attraction thing.

 

The pseudo-science behind the gender spectrum and the 78 new Facebook gender identities is so dodgy and lacking in methodology that we shouldn't be revising laws to give protection to classes that were made up a few years ago in the peak of politically correct ideological madness.  What was considered a tragic mental disorder that required a good deal of psychological intervention a few years ago is now the new progressive civil rights frontier for the radical left.  It doesn't mean it's beneficial to society to normalize and encourage it, especially when it statistically ends in suicide half the time.  That alone shows there's obviously something glaringly pathological about the whole thing.  When coupled with the "the more victim you are the more valuable you are" leftist culture, it's unfortunately causing the ideological contagion to spread like wildfire among the youth.

 

The actual public conversation the LGB community should be having right now is a disavowal of these insane people who don't believe in objective reality or biology that hijacked their tolerance movement.  And before anyone accuses me of ___phobia or ___ism, I'm speaking here as someone who has had relations with both of the two actual genders.

Wonderful people here on WATMM.

Also just want to mention that conflating gay/lesbian/bisexual with transgender/gender-spectrum is an enormous mistake.  Being attracted to the same gender is not at all the same thing as believing you're the opposite gender or that gender doesn't exist.  Radical leftists have been conflating the two intentionally to because they can fall back on the strawman of "you just hate gay people" when one points out the logical fallacies in their beliefs.

  On 2/13/2018 at 6:25 PM, autopilot said:

 

  On 2/13/2018 at 3:17 AM, usagi said:

 

you're drawing a relationship where there isn't really one. job 'creators' have a right to judge by professional criteria who is fit for a position or not, and a person hair colour or sexual preferences do not speak to those. how is what you're saying any different to refusing to hire, say, a gay person?

 

 

Well there's an important distinction there... it is a fabulously gay tube-tob wearing, lisp-accentuating flamer, or a suit-and-tie-wearing real-estate-king type gay?  The former should definitely be allowed to be discriminated against by any employer who doesn't want to provide an unnerving customer service experience.  In the case of non-binary spectrum clowns, the only business I can think of that'd benefit from bringing one of them on board would be a business whose product is turning kids queer.  Or maybe some kind of haunted house / side show attraction thing.

 

The pseudo-science behind the gender spectrum and the 78 new Facebook gender identities is so dodgy and lacking in methodology that we shouldn't be revising laws to give protection to classes that were made up a few years ago in the peak of politically correct ideological madness.  What was considered a tragic mental disorder that required a good deal of psychological intervention a few years ago is now the new progressive civil rights frontier for the radical left.  It doesn't mean it's beneficial to society to normalize and encourage it, especially when it statistically ends in suicide half the time.  That alone shows there's obviously something glaringly pathological about the whole thing.  When coupled with the "the more victim you are the more valuable you are" leftist culture, it's unfortunately causing the ideological contagion to spread like wildfire among the youth.

 

The actual public conversation the LGB community should be having right now is a disavowal of these insane people who don't believe in objective reality or biology that hijacked their tolerance movement.  And before anyone accuses me of ___phobia or ___ism, I'm speaking here as someone who has had relations with both of the two actual genders.

 

Some comedy to cleanse the palette:

 

employers should be able to discriminate against workers if said workers wear tube tops and have a lisp, which is a kind of gay behavior. if some one does not personally ascribe to a conventional notion of gender they are clowns, they don't even do good biology or science and should be only employed by the turning-kids-gay businesses and otherwise banned from non-haunted house professions. leftists are always playing the victims, not like cool guys on watmm who know scientifics and who actually have relations with two genders, i.e. the kind of critical thinkers who ought to be telling the "LGB" (lmao) community what they should do. 

watmm is fucking hilarious.

Weak reductio ad absurdum & strawmen, bro.  You can do better.

People of average intelligence should be able to tell which lines are jokes.

lmao

  On 2/13/2018 at 6:25 PM, autopilot said:

And before anyone accuses me of ___phobia or ___ism, I'm speaking here as someone who has had relations with both of the two actual genders.

Isn't this the 'I can't be racist my bf/gf/best friend is black' defence?

  On 2/13/2018 at 7:12 PM, hello spiral said:

 

  On 2/13/2018 at 6:25 PM, autopilot said:

And before anyone accuses me of ___phobia or ___ism, I'm speaking here as someone who has had relations with both of the two actual genders.

Isn't this the 'I can't be racist my bf/gf/best friend is black' defence?

It's a very solid logical argument that someone who's racist wouldn't date a different race. C'mon man use your brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgVR7lyF6yQ

This man can't escape controversy

The way I see it is that if the trans people are doing fine, then it’s a free and open society with more compassion than most individuals.

Playing along is the only decent thing to do, but in objective reality, Caitlin Jenner is still just Bruce Jenner with some hormones and alterations. One of my coworkers transitioned m to f and I did everything i was supposed to do but in my mind I still never saw him as a woman or could even think of him that way. Saying the new female name just felt weird every time, like I was just pretending.

I guess I just don’t understand the motivation behind it. Their self image is of the opposite sex, and they want to fit into that image and have others see them that way. But does anyone really see them that way? If anything, I see men, women, and someone who is obviously trans and I don’t see how it solves anything, even in their minds.

  On 2/13/2018 at 6:25 PM, autopilot said:

 

  On 2/13/2018 at 3:17 AM, usagi said:

you're drawing a relationship where there isn't really one. job 'creators' have a right to judge by professional criteria who is fit for a position or not, and a person hair colour or sexual preferences do not speak to those. how is what you're saying any different to refusing to hire, say, a gay person?

 

Well there's an important distinction there... it is a fabulously gay tube-tob wearing, lisp-accentuating flamer, or a suit-and-tie-wearing real-estate-king type gay?  The former should definitely be allowed to be discriminated against by any employer who doesn't want to provide an unnerving customer service experience.  In the case of non-binary spectrum clowns, the only business I can think of that'd benefit from bringing one of them on board would be a business whose product is turning kids queer.  Or maybe some kind of haunted house / side show attraction thing.

 

The pseudo-science behind the gender spectrum and the 78 new Facebook gender identities is so dodgy and lacking in methodology that we shouldn't be revising laws to give protection to classes that were made up a few years ago in the peak of politically correct ideological madness.  What was considered a tragic mental disorder that required a good deal of psychological intervention a few years ago is now the new progressive civil rights frontier for the radical left.  It doesn't mean it's beneficial to society to normalize and encourage it, especially when it statistically ends in suicide half the time.  That alone shows there's obviously something glaringly pathological about the whole thing.  When coupled with the "the more victim you are the more valuable you are" leftist culture, it's unfortunately causing the ideological contagion to spread like wildfire among the youth.

 

The actual public conversation the LGB community should be having right now is a disavowal of these insane people who don't believe in objective reality or biology that hijacked their tolerance movement.  And before anyone accuses me of ___phobia or ___ism, I'm speaking here as someone who has had relations with both of the two actual genders.

 

so... the important distinction is that being gay is now normalised enough for it to be ok and part of accepted norms but we still have to give trans people/others questioning gender a hard time before they can be deemed real human beans too.

the only part in there that made some sense to me is that bit about suicide probabilities. but I see that as arising from how problematic it is to have questions about your gender when society doesn't have any answers for them and you're in uncharted territory where you have to fend for yourself. that's obviously difficult, there's little support there, that is what leads to isolation and poor mental health and suicide, not the supposedly inherent mental problems that anybody questioning gender norms would necessarily have.

the stuff about an ideological war being wilfully perpetrated by the "radical left" for some perceived gain makes the least sense to me. what are those gains, and who even are the "radical left"? campus kids and professors? I mean, I would agree that there are posers out there who are playing up their own supposed wokeness by giving themselves clearly fake and silly gender statuses/terms (tumblrcore), but they're just muddying the water for people with legit concerns and they're not the people we should be concerned about. people with good judgement know to disregard them without getting all reactionary and constructing an ideology war in their minds about it.

  On 2/13/2018 at 6:44 PM, Alcofribas said:

they don't even do good biology or science and should be only employed by the turning-kids-gay businesses and otherwise banned from non-haunted house professions.

lol

I think there is something fundamentally different between sexuality and body altering surgery + lifetime of hormones. One could argue one should be normalized and the other should not. 

From a mental wellness perspective, what are the implications of gender identity issues being so at the forefront of everything especially for the younger generation? Shouldn't children be concerned with something else other than if they were born with the wrong parts - a question that far fewer kids would be asking if this wasn't such a dominant issue?

I would hope that asking questions (like I am here, from a position of simply not understanding) is not immediately branded as hateful or this or that. I'm just asking questions as I'm legitimately wondering what other peoples views are (especially since watmm is an international crowd - most of my local pop is farmers/conservatives etc).

  On 2/14/2018 at 12:08 AM, Candiru said:

The way I see it is that if the trans people are doing fine, then it’s a free and open society with more compassion than most individuals.

 

Playing along is the only decent thing to do, but in objective reality, Caitlin Jenner is still just Bruce Jenner with some hormones and alterations. 

I can agree with this. Jenner's probably the most obvious example of where it might seem superfluous and fake, but while that might be my perspective on this particular person, it shouldn't be a wider social norm for all people in similar situations. also it shouldn't stop me from treating Jenner with the basic respects a human being deserves.

it's definitely not the place of employers, the government, or any other authority to try to police this sort of thing. where these issues do intersect with the law (e.g. C-16), there should be cool, level-headed debate rather than a reactionary call to ideology wars.

  On 2/14/2018 at 2:00 AM, Bulk VanderHooj said:

From a mental wellness perspective, what are the implications of gender identity issues being so at the forefront of everything especially for the younger generation? Shouldn't children be concerned with something else other than if they were born with the wrong parts - a question that far fewer kids would be asking if this wasn't such a dominant issue?

it's not a choice like choosing with deliberation from a menu (except for tumblrcore fans, I guess), just like being gay isn't a choice. also, at present, gender identity is far from a dominant issue, even in Western civilisations. there are way more significant socio-economic issues affecting people's lives that take precedence, like "can I make enough money to do the things I want to do". people overstate the influence of gender discussions as a reactionary conservative instinct.

I don't know, it's in our news almost weekly. I would say around here (again it's pretty conservative) it's a pretty hot topic.

RE it not being a choice - again one involves body altering surgery + lifetime of drugs and one doesn't. Doesn't that lend weight to the assertion of gender dysphoria being a mental illness, if there's no "choice" involved in such drastic modification of ones' body? 

I think equating the two or suggesting they're in the same domain is strange (not that you're doing that).