Jordan Peterson

[inthesomeday]

Each individual is, doubtless, unique in his experiences. How do you propose going even further? Would that essentially amount to abolishing the notion of "gender" in its entirety?
Have you considered that the whole reason gender binarism is so deeply rooted is because it is efficient and absolutely works for ~99,9% of the people? I understand that less than 1% of e.g. U.S population identifies as trans - and even of this 1% most(?) just wish to live as if they were the other sex, i.e. they don't necessarily have problem with binarism.
There is no debate that strictly binary approach to gender is bad for intersex individuals and possibly for those with gender dysphoria or similar issues. It is likewise evident that overly strict and outdated gender norms are unnecessarily limiting for many more. But gender is essentially how we deal with being sentient, sexual beings. For most of us, gender norms as such are useful in offering guidance/support/reassurance, in sharing and transferring our experiences between peers and generations. As a society we should sacrifice some of the abovementioned efficiency to be as accommodating as possible to those who otherwise get left behind, but binarism is not "useless" just because it is not universally applicable.

Likewise.

Just because something has always been around doesn’t mean it’s the best. Yeah, the gender binary has pretty effectively managed to convince plenty of people they can fit into one of the two acceptable boxes. But the spectrum varies for pretty much everyone; the binary thus does more harm than it does good (I should certainly say gender relations since agriculture have been less than ideal).

I don't think you have established why gender identity is basically biological, like sex or race. Gender identity seems to be quite fluid, and people have often changed their ideas about what their gender identity is over time, and I don't see why they shouldn't be able to. That seems to suggest it isn't strictly predetermined. I mean, don't you think it is oppressive to tell people they are born a certain way and there is nothing they can do about it?

Most certainly. An individual’s gender identity is their interpretation of something intrinsic to themselves. The fact that this interpretation may change or that it is influenced by external factors does not change that it is nonetheless an interpretation of something internal.

There is a video with Jordan Peterson and someone by the name of Nicholas Matte, a lecturer for Trans-gender Studies at the University of Toronto. He straight up said there is no biological basis for sex. I'm not sure if you endorse that view, but being told that gender identity is biologically predetermined, and also that there is no basic biological basis for sex, is quite funny.

Gender identity is an interpretation of the self. Sex is an external product of a number of factors, including some biological and some environmental. The two are unrelated.

I think IQ is probably highly malleable by environmental factors. But even if I'm wrong about that, in general I just don't agree with this analogy because I think gender identity is ill defined, often in an explicit self-contradictory way. I don't see why I should think gender identity isn't this thing that is planted inside of you at birth. Even if I think it is something like your preference for chocolate ice cream, I see no reason to think that preference wasn't shaped in partly, or even largely, by your environment.

Gender is obviously more complex than chocolate ice cream, but then so is intelligence— and both are more complex than the socially constructed means of measuring and expressing them, respectively the gender binary and IQ.

I don't think you understand conservatives very well.

Even the most well-meaning ones definitively condone racist and sexist systems. Capitalism, the American government, and most traditions of western culture are among those systems.

Well, I said there are a lot of environmental factors that lead to someone being conservative, which isn't really the same as saying you are hard-wired. People don't wake up one day and decide to be conservative, either. My point is the lines people try to draw around things that are choices, and thing that are not, tend to be very ill formed. People try to say some things are a choice using one line of argument. And then, using a completely contradictory line of argument, they say other things are not a choice.

Okay sure. Nothing is a choice. Everything is materially deterministic. This conversation is too.

My point is that it is tremendously more of a choice to be a conservative than it is to interpret your gender identity how you do.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even the most well-meaning ones definitively condone racist and sexist systems. Capitalism, the American government, and most traditions of western culture are among those systems.

Unless you are using a much broader than usual definition of condone I don't think this is true.

We have a dog that jumps up on the window seat and barks at passing children. It is often annoying and sometimes a serious pain in the butt. My gf seems to think that I condone this behavior, as she frequently asks "why do you let her do that?" It seems pretty clear to me that I am not "letting" her do anything. I'm admittedly not stopping her, because the effort required and the costs involved exceed the value of the project should it be successful (which is not guaranteed), but that's not the same as letting her.

I suspect your usage of condone might be similar to my gf's understanding of "let."

 

[Hygro]

@Kyriakos I’ll play

So, is this the person some in the forums have been talking about?

I - entirely by chance, by which i am not joking; i was watching a funny Peter Hitchens video and this guy was in the list to the right - saw one of his videos when he talked a bit about iq tests in the american army, then saw - again in the list of vids to the right - a video titled (the one i posted here) thus that it would be about him possibly saying what his iq is.
Now, after watching the previous vid to this one (US army etc), i noticed he doesn't sound intelligent. Eg he seems to struggle a bit, be toned-down but not in a way which would seem to be caused by massive amount of thinking on his mind, so checked the vid where he would say what his iq is, expecting that if he did come to say a number it would be something like 120.
Fat chance. He claims his iq is "in excess of 150".

Right. No, m8. It isn't. You aren't Einstein-territory intelligent.
So, who is this guy supposed to be? Some intelligentsia version of Dr Phil? ^^

No way man

 

[inthesomeday]

Unless you are using a much broader than usual definition of condone I don't think this is true.

We have a dog that jumps up on the window seat and barks at passing children. It is often annoying and sometimes a serious pain in the butt. My gf seems to think that I condone this behavior, as she frequently asks "why do you let her do that?" It seems pretty clear to me that I am not "letting" her do anything. I'm admittedly not stopping her, because the effort required and the costs involved exceed the value of the project should it be successful (which is not guaranteed), but that's not the same as letting her.

I suspect your usage of condone might be similar to my gf's understanding of "let."

Show me an American conservative who doesn’t actively support and perpetuate American capitalism, government, and traditional western values.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Show me an American conservative who doesn’t actively support and perpetuate American capitalism, government, and traditional western values.

Show me an American communist that doesn't actively support and perpetuate American capitalism, government, and traditional western values.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Gender identity is an interpretation of the self. Sex is an external product of a number of factors, including some biological and some environmental. The two are unrelated.

What gets annoying is the endless bickering over definitions as if they should matter in practice. It doesn't seem people are particularly disagreeing on physical properties when making this distinction, and thought beyond physical properties has not been historically common.

In a broader sense, why should one's interpretation of self matter outside of actions by/toward that person? I don't see a reason a person gender identity is particularly more relevant than their identity as a gamer or a statistician. None of these are grounded in physical properties/have measures beyond actions taken by those who identify as such. They also share in that people argue over the definition/requirements of the identity (IE phone app players aren't "real" gamers, whatever that means).

 

[Chose]

Unless you are using a much broader than usual definition of condone I don't think this is true.

We have a dog that jumps up on the window seat and barks at passing children. It is often annoying and sometimes a serious pain in the butt. My gf seems to think that I condone this behavior, as she frequently asks "why do you let her do that?" It seems pretty clear to me that I am not "letting" her do anything. I'm admittedly not stopping her, because the effort required and the costs involved exceed the value of the project should it be successful, but that's not the same as letting her.

I suspect your usage of condone might be similar to my gf's understanding of "let."

Hmm, my usage of 'let' would definitely match with that of your gf.

Anyways, many conservatives don't think capitalism is a sexist system in the first place, and some have arguments for this. Or, if they do think capitalism is inherently sexist, they still probably think it is the best option we have.

Gender identity is an interpretation of the self. Sex is an external product of a number of factors, including some biological and some environmental. The two are unrelated.

Why do you keep insisting they are unrelated? They appear to be very strongly correlated. Or, is it that you think there are environmental factors affecting this correlation?

 

[Chose]

I don't see a reason a person gender identity is particularly more relevant than their identity as a gamer or a statistician.

Or as a... conservative.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hmm, my usage of 'let' would definitely match with that of your gf.

Would you say that you are letting me type on my keyboard? Why or why not?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Or as a... conservative.

Considering how consistently that's defined (not very) I agree.

The problem when discussing this stuff is basically: when someone says they are X, how much does X constrain your anticipation of their actions/choices they will make? X can be broad or narrow. "Gamer" is a lot more broad than "tournament Halo champion", but both still allow at least some prediction. The rest of these terms also do so to a degree, and that is their value.

But consistency is an issue. Too often what is anticipated is not the same between people hearing X.

 

[Traitorfish]

Show me an American conservative who doesn’t actively support and perpetuate American capitalism, government, and traditional western values.

Ted Kaczynski?

 

[Chose]

Would you say that you are letting me type on my keyboard? Why or why not?

I would say no, because I'm not in a position as your provider or caretaker or anything. If I felt I had some responsibility for you and your actions, then I would find it appropriate to say I was letting you do that.

 

[inthesomeday]

Show me an American communist that doesn't actively support and perpetuate American capitalism, government, and traditional western values.

Assata Shakur

Ted Kaczynski?

I hear no conservatives, only bold and proud primitivist heroes

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Assata Shakur

Have you bought her books?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would say no, because I'm not in a position as your provider or caretaker or anything. If I felt I had some responsibility for you and your actions, then I would find it appropriate to say I was letting you do that.

Hmmmm...there's plenty of interesting directions to go here....how about this one...let's appoint you as my "caretaker" for the next five minutes. Now, near as I can make out you have no practical, or even impractical, method available to keep me from typing. So, caretaker, are you letting me type?

Before this goes too far astray, as a reminder this relates to the accusation that conservatives "difinitively condone" racism, among other things.

 

[Chose]

Hmmmm...there's plenty of interesting directions to go here....how about this one...let's appoint you as my "caretaker" for the next five minutes. Now, near as I can make out you have no practical, or even impractical, method available to keep me from typing. So, caretaker, are you letting me type?

No, I wouldn't say that. In addition to the 'you have to have some responsibility over the situation/person/thing' criteria, which is important, I would add that, yes, there needs to be something, within reason, that you can do, or could have done, in order to prevent it.

So, with the dog situation, it strikes me that there are practical things you could have done, or could do. The lines aren't going to be super clear, to me, when a case becomes so impractical as to have the word "letting" no longer apply, but there are certainly clear cases on either side. The dog case isn't super clear, but based on my limited knowledge of dogs, it strikes me as something on the 'let' side of things. Just because you have decided it isn't worth the effort, in my view, doesn't necessarily get you off the hook for 'letting'. I mean, I could decide it isn't worth the effort to water my plants - knowing it is going to kill them. In that case, I'm still certainly letting them die, IMO.

 

[inthesomeday]

Have you bought her books?

No but regardless c’mon you know what I mean by condone. American conservatism is all about loving America, especially the old ways of America. Sorry if I used the wrong word.

Anyway here’s a semi relevant meme to do with the communists supporting capitalism thing.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wasn't suggesting that every time you meet someone you have to ask. I was suggesting that if whatever you use to start with prompts them to ask that you use something else there is no valid reason other than an obvious desire to be rude for you to then use something else.

Well... okay. You did say "you should ask" though, not "you should accept someone correcting you". So... you know.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Gender identity is an interpretation of the self. Sex is an external product of a number of factors, including some biological and some environmental. The two are unrelated.

It's kind of funny how two unrelated things can have a 99.x% correlation.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's kind of funny how two unrelated things can have a 99.x% correlation.

I know, right? Almost like there’s some sort of vast social construct around both that force them to conform to one another under threat of torture, rape, and death.