- Projects and Committees
- Initiate's Programme suggestions
- IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson
IP suggestion: Jordan Peterson
steamboat28 wrote: That's fair. See y'all? Brick understands that there's nothing wrong with intentionally ignoring the identity someone has given you to use for them, and that you shouldn't be able to rely on legal structures to protect your identity. She gets that misgendering is problematic, but doesn't think it matters if it's done in an unofficial capacity.
As there is no sarcasm font or punctuation mark available on an English QWERTY keyboard, please imagine this being said in a terribly condescending voice.
In all seriousness, how is intentionally misgendering someone not transphobic? How does it not erase their identity? And who are we to decide who people are?
Thank you for keeping things playful Steam!
For clarity, I fundamentally disagree with the idea of misgendering anyone. I don't see what it achieves, and I think its rude, insensitive and deliberately antagonistic.
However, I disagree that it erases their identity. You misgendered me in your post above (I realise you did to prove a point and to poke fun), but I don't feel like my identity has been erased as a result, because i don't define my identity by what you decide to call me. If that makes sense?
I also appreciate, that I am speaking somewhat from a position of privilege as I have never struggled with my gender identity, nor have I ever had to repeatedly request that people refer to me by my preferred pronoun. And I can understand that, had I had to experience those things, I would probably be very sensitive about this topic.
That said, I am sensitive about a whole bunch of other things where there is no legislation in place to protect me. And whilst I think misgendering someone is deliberately cruel thing to do, I don't think being deliberately cruel should be illegal. I wouldn't categorise misgendering someone as inciting hate/violence against transgender people.
Again, I'm not talking about what we SHOULD do morally, I'm purely talking about what laws should or should not be implemented to control our language.
And given what we've seen about the suicide rates of trans people and the effect misgendering has on their wellbeing, I question the worth of any psychologist - or Jedi, who does it.
Passion, authenticity, power, victory.
Williamkaede wrote: I question the worth of any psychologist - or Jedi, who does it.
I agree. But neither myself nor JP have ever done this.
We're both fully in favour of calling people by whatever they want to be called. We just don't believe that we should be legally obligated to do so out of principle
Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome... hmm I would defiantly have to catch up on that idea. You young pups teach an old dog new tricks daily here lol! Respectfully Joking
It such a vs... just political or are there actual ideas applicable. ? Um not sure IP is a place for political sides as far as things like that right ? Truthfully we got J.C. For the myth and watts for breaking from the present thought- krishnamurti and watts for meditation basics. mind walk for connection possibilities and avalibilities .. a brief glance and over view on the general religions then a few Jedi subjects . What would JP bring ?!a good video to watch ? A good idea ? I’m not dissing or arguing but truly open minded - so far he is said to be a putz but I have my own idea of him too... what do U think Tim?
Edit : worth adding to the IP?
pretty sure mindwalk discussed politics as well to some degree. Jack, one of the central characters, was a politician. I think part of that debate was the intersection of all of those ideas; science, philosophy, and politics.
I think what should be considered useful for inclusion to the IP should be material that is ultimately thought provoking and not meant to be agreed with. I may not like JP but that shouldn't matter. I didn't really like Watts either lol. The real question is, is there a lecture where JP is introducing some kind of new idea or perspective that goes deeper than some political position or view on society?
I find JP mostly just expresses opinions that people have but which challenge either the norm or political correctness. It's almost controversy for controversy sake. If you don't like a particular law, okay... Is anyone under the impression that they have to agree with every law? What are people actually learning from JP? What are the useful takeaways? He's very opinionated but if he's wrong he doesn't seem to necessarily own up to it and change his thinking (and in the interview with Joe) because he's well aware that he's now known for these positions. And its all tied together in terms of his own personal finances (TV appearances, book sales, lectures, etc.). On the other hand I felt like J.C. was a gem and someone who I never heard of before.