Jordan Peterson content has taken over this blog, use the search function to find quotes

The link:

1min introduction

2 minutes of non-problematic psychological discussion

[3.07] ‘A penguin is neither/both a fish or a bird. This blows a category structure’.

YES, because this is the nature of reality. Part order, part mess. Paradox is part of reality.

[3.11] ‘The post modernists like derida claimed that categories were primarily tools of power and oppression’…. ‘Who the categories marginalise, and what the consequences of this is. This gets ties into Marxist identity politics- the equivalent of the oppressed working class… the resurgence of Marxism as an ideological doctrine.’

He takes solid psychological theory and tries to make this irrational leap to tie in philosophy and politics- into his Marxism doctrine (at around 5 minutes), it’s built on a reasonable premise (left brain right brain) but this falls apart logically when you closely examine the philosophical extensions (refer blogs critiquing the problems with his interpretation of Marxism)

[4.19] ‘categories exclude. If you include the excluded, you blow the categorical structure… the category structure has been violated’

This would suggest the categories do not reflect reality.

[5.46] ‘Binary categories maintain order. If you violate them to include those who were excluded… upswelling of chaos’

Statistically, You can have stable categories without them being binary. Humans exist along a continuum.

We require a more complex societal structure which is not reliant on ‘dominant’ vs ‘other’. (Eg white vs POC). A heirarchy by its very nature requires more than 2 levels. This is contradictory.

[7.20] ‘there is only male and female. There’s nothing more. Where does this come from?’

Sex is the biological reality (which can at times be debated anyway, such as a ‘male’ normative brain in a biological female). Gender is the construct. THEY DON’T GET THE FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS.

[8.15] ‘identity unmoored from the objective then it’s just subjective and can be anything’.

Extreme masculine to want everything to be objectively defined and in a way which maintains the status quo- white male dominant.

Some things need to be subjective, that is balance. According to yin yang, it would be half.

[8.51] ‘a philosophical assault on the concept of gender itself’.

Yes. Because our rigid notions of gender are deeply problematic and are in part socially constructed beyond the realities of the physical- and need to also encompass the contradictions of the physical, such as male brain in female, males who are more sensitive, females who are stronger, etc. (refer to bell curve). Other societies manage to have more flexible gender constructs without collapsing in on themselves. It is fear mongering to say this is a risk to the very structure of society. No, it is only a risk to the white male ego and to the status quo- that is, a risk to Peterson himself. It is not a risk to all those who would benefit from it, males and females alike both negatively affected by toxic masculinity, for example.

[8.53] regarding dr Nicolas mats claim that the science over 4 decades, No biological differences between men and women- ‘a remarkable claim’

[9.49] ‘the dissolution of identity into unbelievable chaos’

toxic Masculinity so fragile

[10.01] German philosopher, our recognition of the biological sex of animals is nothing more than an artificial imposition of a arbitrary ideological construct… ‘the evolutionary biologists are next in the sights of the social justice warriors’


[11.22] ‘Inclusion of a transwoman into the category destabilises the definition of a woman. What should be done about that?’

Expand the definition.

[11.49] ‘Structural Basis of civilisation itself is the nuclear family… under assault… Christian fundamentalists picked this up.. dissolution of structures destabilises the nuclear family. Unclear consequences. Children raised in intact families with two biological parents do far better’

Intact family doesn’t have to mean heteronormative. Current structures of gender are deeply problematic and lead to the breakdown of stable relationships. The existing structures do not work and have caused generations of trauma.

[12.50] ‘Its in the interests of those people… If you destabilise a culture enough, it will become rapidly intolerant, and then the first thing that happens is those that are identifiably different become targets of an intolerant culture’

Our culture is already intolerant. It is deeply dysfunctional. The male dominance causes enough problems that it has caused the desire for changes. And the minorities fight because they have historically been experiencing discrimination as targets. This structure is not inherently stable.

[13.10] ‘if [the lgbt community] want to request inclusion, they have to figure out how that can be done in such a way that it doesn’t destabilise the entire structure’

He’s so afraid of the unknown. By stability he means the status quo of masculine dominant. If we established that flipping the heirarchy was possible and would be more stable with females dominant. What would he say then?

[14.06] ‘an act of politeness on your part [to be easily identifiable as a woman]’

This is problematic when to be ‘a woman’ relies on being pretty and submissive. This excludes the reality of many, if not most, of the women already in that category, and is an artificial imposition. When so many of the women speak up saying the same thing, it challenges the notion of this being an absolute, objective, biological reality.

[15.04] ‘the manner in which that inner drive [to be female] manifests itself is part of a social negotiation’

This is the problematic aspect going unaddressed: the definition of male is so strict as to be that if a male wants to be soft and pretty, he needs to identity as female to be allowed to do so. This rigid definition of gender may be the true underlying issue for the transgender community: to instead battle for males to be allowed to inhabit the traits designated only for females (touch, affection, dresses, makeup, emotionality, close relationships)

[15.12] (interviewer) ‘that is my argument for choosing a definition of women which includes me.. referring to me as a male would create more confusion’.

‘Your mere existence is a threat to categorical order, your duty as a consequence despite the potential violation of your own sense of self would be to deny your inner impulses and confirm (not saying you should, you could make a case)—the social obligation of someone that doesn’t fit into a fundamental category would be to fit into a category, because it’s so threatening not to—…although often people who don’t fit in are necessary’.

Threatening to whom??? The white heteronormative male?

[17.05] (interviewer) ‘How useful is a definition of a woman? … describes the vast majority of real world cases.. not conflicting to consider a different definition of woman without threatening categories..’

Raising the larger question of responsibility to be a certain gender: what does it mean to be female?

[17.48] if you’re born a man and wish to be treated as a woman, what are the minimal obligations you have to undertake in order to be granted this privilege… don’t consider it respect to use proper pronouns, pronouns are casual… what are the responsibilities to be given that privilege?…

Is it a casual thing or is it a privilege??

‘Don’t make it anymore awkward for anyone to interact with you than it needs to be. Behave nicely once you’re welcomed into the house… Behave nicely when welcomed into the category, comply by the rules and not blow up the category’.

The left recognises that the current boundaries of the category are deeply problematic and might be *gasp* better off blown up and then reestablished. Sometimes you need to level the building and clear the block to start again with a better foundation. Life-death-life cycle, JP is terrified of the skeleton woman (refer to Clarissa pinkola estes).

[21.05] ‘Have to be discriminating or you’ll do anything all of the time…. Chimpanzees are promiscuous. Males chase away subordinate males. Nothing to do with female preference… human females are sexually choosy… on average every female produces 2 offspring to every male producing one… female sexual selectivity’

This could also be males unwillingness or unsuitability to procreate or be fathers!

Incredible assumptions based more on his personal bias more than on any objective evidence.

[22.20] ‘Females tend to choose for those above or across in dominance hierarchy- health, appearance, productivity manifested as status… minority are found sexually attractive, majority not.’

This is an assumption based on supposed norms and disregards other factors psychologically proven to be important such as familiarity

[22.47] ‘Feminists want the right to absolute sexual choice- this is discrimination based on race, religion, age, health, attractiveness… Discrimination governs sexual choice. Eradicate justification for discrimination- same as the right to freedom of association- blow out sexual choice’

This is very extremist. Argument that if you can’t take something to the extreme conclusion without consequence that it is not correct in the moderate form.

[23.37] ‘considering you as a sexual partner is going to be distressing. Is that acceptable? Why?’

Because anyone not without the majority will cause the same!! An older woman, a disabled person, a black person in a white conservative family.

Our right to existence and self determination is not governed by the preferences of the heteronormative male viewer. A man might want to date me but be made uncomfortable by my choice to grow armpit hair. That has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong for me to do so.

Note: This question is answered in a different context to the one that I believe JP was asking it. I believe he was asking ‘is it ok that you exist within the social context when you are making people uncomfortable’, whereas the question she answered was more simplified ‘do they have a right to be uncomfortable’

[24.28] ‘Why are we allowed to discriminate sexually?… not obvious why it’s okay to discriminate sexually’. References brave new world, ‘moral obligation to not discriminate… everyone belongs to everyone else. thats the final limit’

Because our bodies are ours and we have the right to consent! Our body is not a common resource. This relates to the idea of a ‘sexual marketplace’, capitalism taken to the extreme when the individuals body become a commodity. Ironically (given JPS ideological proclivities), this idea of the common good superseding individual freedom is quite communist.

[24.55] (Interviewer) ‘I believe in equality and lack of discrimination, equal treatment under the law.’

Interesting this is not considered problematic to JP given his opposition to the bill designed to protect transpeople from abuse under the law.

[26.25] ‘Free market is interesting.. Privilege to reject others…. Horror on either side.. if we eliminate sexual choice… We have to allow ourselves be a sexual target of whomever whenever… not one that one would rapidly accept.. assault on an individual’s agency. Maintain the right to discriminate. Putting these boundaries is very tricky..’

JP presents this like it would an appalling prospect- this is the reality of women! This also has homophobic undertones.

In a real world practical sense most people most of the time do not find these boundaries tricky.

[27.07] ‘Discrimination has gone too far… men should be allowed to hang around men if they want to… that right should be necessary for the proper development of masculinity and femininity’

He presents this as if they’re aren’t in a reasonable sense. JP is arguing for the right to men’s clubs. No one is stopping men hanging with men. The problem is when this is discriminating against a minority group or maintaining a dominance heirarchy, which he thinks needs to be protected. If it falls apart when it is not institutionally protected, then how valid is it as an actual heirarhy? Should it not automatically reassert itself if it is a natural order?

[27.33] ‘another horrible thing… homosexual men who get married are still promiscuous- Men tend to not say no to sexual activitity… responsibility to be part of the game, have to follow the rules’

This is a tenant of toxic masculinity which results in discrimination against men who are raped and is not true for a large portion of men.

He says there is literature, where is the data on this? What is the comparison for males in heterosexual marriages and their promiscuity! It is likely comparable. This seems more of an argument against men being monogamous than it is an argument against homosexual marriage per se.

Being highly intelligent—which JP undoubtably is—is not the same as being an intellectual, which is dependant on a solid, rational and academically agreed upon, cohesive theoretical framework.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: