Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

[NewEngland Seeker]

Research into the past hasn't been without its flaws. Queer theory applied to archaeology and history didn't start because of an agenda to change facts. It came about to challenge assumptions made from heteronormative perspectives that may have overlooked or unecessarily filled in details/blank spaces in the record

I see that you are trapped in the minutia of the human experience. When it is all said and done, human existence, was an experience in how to be divine. Trying to KNOW the past by being open to non-heternormative perspectives, is for me, straining at the gnats. Furthermore, how vain are we to think that we should honor the past by giving them some social constructed label? It is equivalent to giving me (70ish) a sticker for being potty trained by age 2, foolishness!

Just couldn't help it.

 

[Glenn]

Relativists don't really believe in facts. So, what is a relativistic fact?

A relativistic fact, is one that is relative to the amount that someone is willing to pay to have it discovered and promoted. For example, climate science.

 

[iscreamsandwish]

Found this on YouTube and wanted to share. I think he hits the nail in the head with his message.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Found this on YouTube and wanted to share. I think he hits the nail in the head with his message.

I particularly liked the way he decided to relay his message in a controlled even manner. I think it worked very well. Hope many get to see it.

 

[Voyageur]

Research into the past hasn't been without its flaws.

Not sure if you have read from Collingwood (Idea of History, Speculum Mentis and others)? Good thread, good books at looking at guesses and facts and logical outcomes. Now I don't remember Collingwood talking about things like Queer Theory and Feminist Archaeology - all yet to be, however he does offer ways of looking at the past. Historical flaws by historians themselves seem to be a cut and paste thing, just as archaeological findings can be weaved into a pattern if one truly wants to deceive or, omitted.

- others can have the final word or just move on, i'll return to bleachers :)

As for this particular (or the whole) line of force in this thread, no need to return to the bleachers as you are already in the field.

A culture can't define sex by chromosomes if they have no concept for chromosomes. So you can imagine a culture that defines sex in some other way. You can imagine a thousand possible cultures who have no knowledge of cellular biology. Each one might have a different definition of sex. Or no definition, for that matter.

Concepts about chromosomes or not, can it be defined by common sense in most cultures?

Common sense (often just known as sense) is sound, practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge in a manner that is shared by (i.e. common to) nearly all people.

 

[Voyageur]

Found this on YouTube and wanted to share. I think he hits the nail in the head with his message.

Very powerful talk, and reading it out aloud as he had written it, made sense - helping to smooth out his natural anger, and rightly so IMO, that accompanied.

Good job, JBP!

 

[psychegram]

They won't listen. They can't. They're committed now.

Whirlwind reaping it will be.

 

[siftingmaterials]

Concepts about chromosomes or not, can it be defined by common sense in most cultures?

I don't know. Interesting tangent, though. Some in my own culture believe that men and women are literally differentiated by god's will and some believe that you're not really a man if you haven't hunted and processed a wild buck. Some believe sex is best signified by cultural upbringing or self-identity and some outright reject this and say that reproductive organs are the central defining characteristic of sex. Can I attribute a common sense to my own people? Not sure.

I have an ancestral line going back to London at least 300 years. I assume my ancestors have contended with /adapted to the struggles we go through over concepts like common sense and the consequences that result. So common sense is a fluid socio-historical category, by my observation, like sex and gender. All these concepts are defined by the people and/or the struggle to claim them, and the places and times in which those people find themselves.

 

[mkrnhr]

Sex is a biological fact and common sense is related to observed realities in nature and in oneself. Some male and female characteristics are related to their sex and some others are related to the adaptation (throughout space and time and circumstances) of a social group, at the family, tribe or larger level, to those characteristics. So-called queer theories take advantage of people suffering mentally under the modern life in big cities, but the theories themselves are laughable because they are stupid in their essence and using sophisticated-sounding neologisms doesn't prevent their stupidity. These theories, by denying that there is truth that manifests in reality, are also a perfect means for the elites to establish total control over their victims who, not even knowing what it is to be human and how to relate to each other, cannot resist or deflect dehumanization.

 

[Voyageur]

Regarding 'what is a woman' (conversely what is a man) and those who cannot seem to identify with either sex, or they are generally confused with which one to be (happens), or they feel they are the opposite to what has always appeared in the mirror, this had brought up a comment from a doctor who was speaking to me on the issues of mental heath during the so-called pandemic. We had talked on best practices and how tricky it was to make referrals during the pandemic, and such.

So, as an aside to much of all that has been said through this thread, one thing, which I had not thought about, was the subject of antipsychotics and assigned sex (this seemed important).

There are all kinds of things impacted/regulated by antipsychotics, such as the protein AKT, and it is known that woman and men respond differently to antipsychotic drugs (these drugs especially, and yet what do we really know, and what don't we know of many drugs?). Here is a bit of an introduction:

Generally, males have faster gastrointestinal absorptions, lower fat contents, and higher activity of metabolic enzymes than females. Thus, males need higher doses of antipsychotic drugs to reach stable blood concentration, which increases their risk of drug-related side effects.5 However, female schizophrenic patients have been observed to report more side effects, eg weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and arrhythmia than men.6 Clinical studies and animal studies suggested an antidopaminergic effect of estrogens,7,8 which accounted for some of the better responses to antipsychotics in females. In addition, gender differences were reported in responses to different types of antipsychotic drugs. Female patients receiving clozapine displayed significantly better prognosis than male patients, while olanzapine-related gender differences were only observed in quality of life. No gender differences have been found in patients receiving risperidone.9

And just above that it states:

Results: The search found that sex influences drug response via the amount of a given drug that enters the brain and the number of neurotransmitter receptors to which it can bind. Consequently, sex partly determines the efficacy of a specific drug and its liability to induce unwanted effects. There are other factors that can overshadow or enhance the dimorphic effect of sex, for instance, the host's age, hormonal status, diet and life style as well as the molecular structure of the drug and its dose, and the method of its administration. Most of all, the host's individual genetics affects each step of a drug's pharmacodynamics.

Conclusion: On average, women's psychotic symptoms respond to antipsychotic drugs at doses lower than men's. This means that many women may be de facto overdosed and, thus, experience unnecessary adverse effects. That being said, factors such as genetics and age probably determine drug response and tolerability to a greater degree than do biological sex or gender social roles.

Again, there are many pharmacological studies on this, and probably all drug studies have to factor for sex (would hope), and the point of bringing this up when addressing a mental illness (I'm not condoning all pharmacological interventions by any means), is that for instance, when it is said that she or he has a mental illness, then that is hopefully understood. It does not matter that they may think of themselves, be it a rhinoceros or whatever else, or feel something else, they are either one or the other sex. One might suppose, that if the patient has assigned themselves an intersexed 'gender' (that highjacked word Luc looked at), then they might expect the doctor to say that you are a non-binary affirming identified person, or some such euphemism to match their feelings, who has a mental illness. However, the doctor would have to also make a decision base upon their birth sex. The drug dose must address male or female biology, and they would have to say to their patient, that it really does not matter what you feel or what procedures you have received, these drugs could really mess you up if not prescribed correctly. If the patient were told this directly, there is a good chance that they would suddenly abandon their feelings and default back to their birth sex (would hope so) without much argument. Whether or not doctors tell them this, though, is another matter, yet one can read how critical this could be.

The moral of all this appears to be, that if a person 'feels' like the opposite sex and it is very real to them, as I'm sure it can be; no problem with that if it is what they want, they might reflect to get their sex right when receiving certain drugs (and this is not some concept to bandy about), because there is no fooling mother natures biological designs in this, or I've yet to be convinced otherwise.

 

[iamthatis]

Research into the past hasn't been without its flaws. Queer theory applied to archaeology and history didn't start because of an agenda to change facts.

Okay, so queering archaeology didn't start as an 'agenda to change facts'. That said, those steering an agenda doesn't usually announce 'we are going to stage an attack on truth'. Why would they? America always bombs for democracy, not control of oil or punishment of those disobedient states who want something better than exploitation. The idea that 'there is no agenda' creates the primary condition of possibility for an agenda to exist. For instance, the UN recently assured me that there is no agenda. I was so relieved!

It came about to challenge assumptions made from heteronormative perspectives that may have overlooked or unecessarily filled in details/blank spaces in the record

So the initiation of queering archaeology was not 'changing facts' but 'challenging assumptions'. 'Challenging assumptions' sure sounds better. 'Changing facts' sounds like being paid to create lies, and teach methods to others for doing so, in service of an ideology ungrounded in reality. I can see why one would opt for the moral-sounding 'challenging assumptions' instead of the hard-to-swallow 'changing facts'.

This is generally the way ideology, as a mind-virus, explains itself to its host - in terms of altruism, or a good cause, something closer to the truth. In this case, its 'challenging assumptions'. But the stated altruistic motive is just the sugar coating on a bitter pill of the full agenda of transformation. A lot of environmentalists, for instance, care so much about the planet that they are not-so-secretly hoping that billions of people die. Communism also began with a decent-sounding premise, ie. to end the exploitation of the workers. Meanwhile, in the gulag...

The point is, I think that 'queering archaeology' - and the 'queering' of most, if not all, disciplines - does the same no matter what language you use to describe it. The effect is to ponerize the institution or field of research. The broader social effect of this is to give evil yet another foothold in the world. In case you're not familiar with the word 'ponerize', I'd very highly recommend Political Ponerology by Lobaczeswki. After reading, you might consider that you've been taught to employ the sorts of language games that he describes when people are under the sway of ideology.

So although you may not see it as such, there is an agenda at play, mostly in the West, and queering archaeology is operating within the context of this broader psychopathic agenda, currently gathered under the term 'woke'. 'Woke' links up with other Big Lies like anthropogenic global warming, CBDCs and digital identities, and in general the immiseration and enslavement of as many humans as possible, according to the C's, to be able to enslave us in 3D prior to the Wave, or in 4D after the transition.

It's kinda like a birdcage. People may see a few bars of the cage (ie., identify a few major lies), but may not see the totality of the frequency fence.

In this way, queering archaeology might seem like an innocent academic pursuit, based on a 'we can never know the mind of the celts' starting point. But outside of the ivory tower, you have paediatricians giving chemical castration hormones to children - sometimes without their parents knowing about it. Young kids are also being taken to drag shows in strip clubs. People of all ages who often have a history of mental illness are being convinced to submit for genital mutilation. Many of them end up as suicides. Institutions are increasingly incompetent on the basis of identity quotas instead of striving for excellence and service. Students of all ages can now identify as cats, and if the teacher doesn't approve of their animalistic fantasy world, then that teacher is liable for a struggle session or a new job. And on and on.

I consider all this to be evil, and an effect of psychopathy on a quite broad scale - a psychopathy that is busy trying to make more of itself. This is what I'm thinking of when I said that a supposedly-innocuous 'queered archaeology' is one bar in the 'woke' cage. It is one part of a very real agenda to to try to change facts. Whether or not it began as 'challenging assumptions' is kinda moot because the result is clearly an increase of suffering and misery, and imprisonment of the mind. As far as I can tell, the current woke madness began in academia, by 'challenging assumptions'. The Captive Mind by Czesław Miłosz would prolly also be useful to further understand the role that intellectuals play in ponerization:

The Captive Mind was written soon after the author's defection from Stalinist Poland in 1951. In it, Miłosz drew upon his experiences as an illegal author during the Nazi Occupation and of being a member of the ruling class of the postwar People's Republic of Poland. The book attempts to explain the allure of Stalinism to intellectuals, its adherents' thought processes, and the existence of both dissent and collaboration within the postwar Soviet Bloc. Miłosz described that he wrote the book "under great inner conflict".

 

[mkrnhr]

Even "challenging assumptions" doesn't always sound as virtuous as it's meant to be. It depends on the assumptions, their consequences, and the consequences of challenging those assumptions. Challenging the assumption the the moon is made of cheese is neutral. However, challenging the assumption that life is worth preserving, challenging the assumptions that other people's lives and dignity is valuable, challenging the assumption that freedom is better than slavery, don't look to be that virtuous. And yet, these are among the assumptions the Davos crowd (humans are hackable machines with no freewill) and associates are challenging alongside what used to be obvious about human nature.

 

[siftingmaterials]

Even "challenging assumptions" doesn't always sound as virtuous as it's meant to be. It depends on the assumptions, their consequences, and the consequences of challenging those assumptions. Challenging the assumption the the moon is made of cheese is neutral. However, challenging the assumption that life is worth preserving, challenging the assumptions that other people's lives and dignity is valuable, challenging the assumption that freedom is better than slavery, don't look to be that virtuous. And yet, these are among the assumptions the Davos crowd (humans are hackable machines with no freewill) and associates are challenging alongside what used to be obvious about human nature.

Well there's much upon which we agree. I agree that bad actors challenge useful assumptions to create artificial need, for example. Like the assumption that we need mechanical dishwashers because there just isn't enough time in the day. We can pull apart the marketing of dishwashers, the cost of raw materials, the profit margins, the long-term corporate gains of market domination and share price and so on. Then we can think about how we don't have enough time in the day because we work 8 hours at the mechanical dishwasher plant. So on. Iamthatis cites cat-identified students as an example of challenged assumptions leading to evil outcomes. This is all rooted in the same desire: We want not to trust or carry forward the messaging of those who challenge useful or valuable assumptions.

We agree that reproductive biology is a fact, though maybe we might argue about the terms we apply, or how much "womanhood" or "manhood" are, in essence, sociohistorical categories we pin to biological reality.

We extend "male" and "female" terminology to the reproductive biology of plants, for example, but in the case of plants, it's entirely uncontroversial that any woman-hood or man-hood we'd ascribe to that biology is a allegorical. So too with us, I think. Why not? The biology is fact. Our manhood and womanhood is socially ascribed, socially defined, socially restrained and socially contextualized. Whether one wants to say that people do this for good or evil, that's fine.

In my opinion, this is plainly observable. It's particularly clear when you look at the natural world. The biology of sexual reproduction constellates in foxes much the same as it does in humans, but we don't tell stories about fox biology or litigate the profundity or sanctity of their biology like we do our own. We tend to conceptual models of what it means to be a man, what it means to be a woman, adding or subtracting ideas over time, denouncing the conceptual models of other people, or people of other cultures or societies, so on. We litigate and re-litigate the past, as we can see from the activist who wrote the article.

I guess I'd just re-iterate that I think the activist's pursuit becomes unethical if they would claim that the lived experience of the ancient celt was continuous with their own. I'd have the same criticism of an archaeologist from the 1940s who looked at the remains of an ancient celt and assumed that markers he perceives as masculine indicates the celt shared his lived experience as a self-described healthy, well adjusted heterosexual man.

I brought this up in the first place because I think this acknowledgement of what separates fact (what is the case) from interpretation (what we pin to facts) protects us from being manipulated or carried away into purely suppositional understandings of the world. Which, I think, we all share as a common goal here

 

[Revolucionar]

The biology is fact. Our manhood and womanhood is socially ascribed, socially defined, socially restrained and socially contextualized. Whether one wants to say that people do this for good or evil, that's fine.

I don't even know where to begin with stuff like this. It's contradictory nonsense and not rooted in reality.
It's how you think it is, or would like it to be, but for the vast, overwhelming majority of people, their manhood or womanhood is defined by their biology and they express it accordingly.
And if you ever have a child, god forbid, or observe their growing up, you'll see that these differences are hardwired and not taught, merely perhaps reinforced.
The people who transition and are not insane, decide to express their new sex in accordance with what it's supposed to look like based on common sense and biology.

I have more to say, but your writing feels like you'd fit right in to the movie What is a Woman?
Speaking of which, what IS a woman, in your opinion?

 

[siftingmaterials]

I have more to say, but your writing feels like you'd fit right in to the movie What is a Woman?
Speaking of which, what IS a woman, in your opinion?

In my opinion? it's a concept.

So live and let live, I say. You might read what I wrote about fact/biology as contradictory, but it's what I see. What I see is that we are these biological beings that reproduce through a process that necessitates specific organizations of reproductive organs and so on. The concepts we pin to that reality, that experience are culturally constructed, are built upon and influenced by a history of prior and parallel usages. Dollars to doughnuts, that pattern will continue. Our input only drives it onward.

The whole struggle described by Matt Walsh's movie, to me, represents a categorical error in our thinking that leads to the "problem" we think we're solving by trying to win the debate.