I see a contradiction between the two bolded statements there. Unless the second one is a normative statement, ie, how you think things should. Because as your first bolded statement says clearly, you do understand how there is a component to the definition of "man" that doesn't involve the xy chromosome.
Right, I take your point. My second one was normative, for the most part, but I guess I don't think there is a problem with the association of XY chromosomes and penises specifically, because we know those are non-culturally related. Just like whatever genes lead to blue eyes, associating those two isn't a problem in my view, it would be associating the blue eyes or the genetics with some sort of stereotype.
I think when we do serious conceptual analysis we always run into problems. What does it mean to be an orange vs a tangerine? An orange is more spherical, but does that mean an oddly shaped orange isn't an orange? Oranges have thicker skin, tangerines have thinner skin, does that mean if an orange has thinner skin it is a tangerine? I see the point here, but I still think Oranges and Tangerines are valid categories, they just breakdown a bit when you look at them really close, but if you stick to genetics it seems to hold up the best. If you want to say Orange to Tangerine is a spectrum I don't have any issue with that. If you say a fruit on this spectrum can choose to be off the spectrum, it's not just that I can't wrap my head around that, I also think you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't have anything to add except that this is exactly what trans-inclusive feminism wants to do. And this bill (that Peterson has misrepresented in ways calculated to be attractive to the alt-right) is, in my judgment, a step on the path toward this goal.
I don't think so. I see a problem when someone says they are a women even though they have XY chromosome, and a penis. Or when someone says they have some kind of essence of a women, or that they were born a women, even though they are XY chromosome with a penis. There is no essence of a women outside of the basic genetics and resulting genitalia. At that point they are necessarily attaching harmful stereotypes and baggage onto what it means to be a women, so I oppose it.
See, I find this line of reasoning to be very problematic. I don't think I really understand what it's like or what it means to be non-binary either, but if you genuinely do think that, as you put, "you should be able to act in any way you want, you can like whatever you want," then it seems a contradiction for you to oppose legal protections for nonbinary people on the basis of their gender identity/expression, simply because you can't wrap your head around what it means. I will add that there are plenty of resources available online that explain this stuff. There are even places where you can (respectfully) ask nonbinary people themselves some of these questions, though that may require some time investment to earn trust.
I oppose the specific policy even though I think I share the same values that you have. As I said, it isn't simply that I can't wrap my head around itt, I think the reason I can't make sense of it is because it is inherently contradictory. If it is valid to say you are a women, then it must be the case that the concept of a women is valid. Being a women can't both mean something and be an invalid concept. You don't get both.
In the context of my last post, yes. I see no reason why people who are knowingly and intentionally rude should not have their actions stopped, abruptly.
I think that is barbaric, backwards, and disgusting. I'm extremely grateful that societies have moved on from this instinct and are able to resolve difference with dialog other than violence. I think you have no idea what you are actually advocating, or what a society where disagreements lead to violence as the norm would look like.
