Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

Remove this Banner Ad

I'm happy for someone to be held accountable for being wrong if that goes both ways.

Now, who is liable if a child is chemically mutilated and then as an adult decides that it shouldn't have happened?
We've been non-therapeutically lobbing the ends off knobs for hundreds of years as an act of faith (Judaism) or submission (Islam) - without any consent whatsoever from the child (not even the 'informed consent' that 16 years olds trans-kids can have). This practice is still allowed in Australia.

Unlike the above, decisions regarding hormonal and surgical intervention for Gender Dysmorphic adolescents are made based on the best available diagnostic and medical evidence at the time. If that evidence changes, so to will the medical advice.
 
We've been non-therapeutically lobbing the ends off knobs for hundreds of years as an act of faith (Judaism) or submission (Islam) - without any consent whatsoever from the child (not even the 'informed consent' that 16 years olds trans-kids can have). This practice is still allowed in Australia.

Unlike the above, decisions regarding hormonal and surgical intervention for Gender Dysmorphic adolescents are made based on the best available diagnostic and medical evidence at the time. If that evidence changes, so to will the medical advice.

I'm fine with banning circumcision too.

I think we can agree that any intervention in the biology of a child that could have lifelong implications should not be allowed. That's what I'm taking from this.

Because circumcision has a rate of permanent sexual dysfunction far far lower than the non reversible hormone treatments.
 
We've been non-therapeutically lobbing the ends off knobs for hundreds of years as an act of faith (Judaism) or submission (Islam) - without any consent whatsoever from the child (not even the 'informed consent' that 16 years olds trans-kids can have). This practice is still allowed in Australia.

Unlike the above, decisions regarding hormonal and surgical intervention for Gender Dysmorphic adolescents are made based on the best available diagnostic and medical evidence at the time. If that evidence changes, so to will the medical advice.
The issue is that we don’t long term studies of gender reassignment.

Everybody is pissing in the dark.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The word "partial" means it's not reversible. It has forever implications and people should stop talking about it like it's a pause button with only good things coming from it.
Well, that is misinformation that should be corrected.

I agree that biological puberty will be far more active, but I believe the stats also show that gender confused children who don't transition overwhelmingly just turn out to be gay adults - where as those that begin the process stick to it.
Link?

One of those has much better outcomes by the way.
Transitioning is very hard - often a lifelong struggle for those who transition late/after puberty. The lack of social acceptance (compared to homosexuals today) does not help.

Transition is far easier for those who begin treatment during puberty - the same thing you wish to ban.
 
The issue is that we don’t long term studies of gender reassignment.

Everybody is pissing in the dark.
Not to mention any long term studies that don't fit the narrative are suppressed until *dun dun dun* a court order appears.

Tavistock.
 
I'm fine with banning circumcision too.

I think we can agree that any intervention in the biology of a child that could have lifelong implications should not be allowed. That's what I'm taking from this.
You are entitled to your view. I, the RACP, and the Family Court of Australia all disagree.

Because circumcision has a rate of permanent sexual dysfunction far far lower than the non reversible hormone treatments.
Treatment for Gender Dysmorphia has a therapeutic basis - to treat a diagnosis of Gender Dysmorphia.
Non-therapeutic circumcision can occur to submit an infant child to a supranatural being who may/may not exist.
 
Not to mention any long term studies that don't fit the narrative are suppressed until *dun dun dun* a court order appears.

I support the usage of long term studies no matter what the findings are, but the key to long term studies is there must be something TO study. Control groups. Straight adolescents. Gay adolescents. Gender dysphoric adolescents who aren't on puberty blockers contrasted with those who are.

We will never know what works and what doesn't if there is no pool with which to study from. Animal testing may give some physiological changes but can an animal tell us in words exactly how they're feeling? How such and such a treatment is making them feel within themselves? Psychological readings?

Science will show the way and I'm willing to accept that such future findings may well rule against puberty blockers being used in children, but we will never know that unless we go forward with at least a few groups to study.
 
I support the usage of long term studies no matter what the findings are, but the key to long term studies is there must be something TO study. Control groups. Straight adolescents. Gay adolescents. Gender dysphoric adolescents who aren't on puberty blockers contrasted with those who are.

We will never know what works and what doesn't if there is no pool with which to study from. Animal testing may give some physiological changes but can an animal tell us in words exactly how they're feeling? How such and such a treatment is making them feel within themselves? Psychological readings?

Science will show the way and I'm willing to accept that such future findings may well rule against puberty blockers being used in children, but we will never know that unless we go forward with at least a few groups to study.
I agree that without testing you don't get any results, but my point was that the results going against the 'oh, it's all good, working, tested, go right ahead' narrative had to be made public under order. They were suppressing the data that didn't fit the social justice narrative.

We know an animal can't consent to being a test subject, but are these children even informed they're test subjects and not regular patients undergoing confirmed successful procedures in light of this?

In the case of Tavistock, were the test subjects even given ample time to wrap their young heads around this during their 3 hours consultation? Would like to see the paperwork involved as it would shed some light on whether it was even communicated, let alone understood.

My inclination is to believe they were told 'you're getting what you want, how could you say no' off the record all the way through the process.
 
Last edited:
I agree that without testing you don't get any results, but my point was that the results going against the 'oh, it's all good, working, tested, go right ahead' narrative had to be made public under order.

They were suppressing the data that didn't fit the social justice narrative.

We know an animal can't consent to being a test subject, but are these children even being told they're test subjects and not regular patients undergoing confirmed successful procedures?

Yeah, if it isn't done on specific privacy grounds then data supression is wrong. If a study finds that more harm than good is being done than this must be made public. This is a welfare issue after all, and the aim is to improve someone's life not degrade it.

I'd imagine that both the parents and children should be informed that their progress would be included as part of an ongoing study and that they'd need to give legal consent for this to happen.
 
Yeah, data supression is wrong. If a study finds that more harm than good is being done than this must be made public. This is a welfare issue after all, and the aim is to improve someone's life, not degrade it.

I'd imagine that both the parents and children should be informed that their progress would be included as part of an ongoing study and that they'd need to give legal consent for this to happen.
In the name of transparency, I'd edited the quoted post pretty heavily as I realised the thought process needed some further clarification and editing to make it more obvious.
 
Now this is funny


In the new issue of Captain America, the superhero’s longtime nemesis Red Skull espouses his views about “10 rules for life”, “the feminist trap” and “chaos and order” – and Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson is none too pleased.

Written by the award-winning author Ta-Nehisi Coates, the Marvel comic features a version of the villain who looks to radicalise young men by telling them “what they’ve always longed to hear … That they’re secretly great. That the whole world is against them. That if they’re men, they’ll fight back. And bingo – that’s their purpose. That’s what they’ll live for. And that’s what they’ll die for.”
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)


How about a parody of someone like Penny Wong - leading an army of Chicks with Dicks against Peterson's equally Fictional Incel Army?
That might level the score a bit.
 
Could there be anything more predictable?
Irrefutable evidence that contemporary progressives suffer from a severe form of constipation. No longer capable of normal evacuation, every time progressives now open their mouths the stench is dangerously putrid and disease spreading.

"... and only six inmates did not request to be in a women’s facility."

Statistics suggest a strong correlation between transgenderism and crime worthy of incarceration. Does gender dysphoria drive them to it? Is transgenderism really not hurting anyone?

Is society so transphobic it's inventing crimes to put those experiencing positively harrowing gender dysphoria under lock and key?
 
"... and only six inmates did not request to be in a women’s facility."

Statistics suggest a strong correlation between transgenderism and crime worthy of incarceration. Does gender dysphoria drive them to it? Is transgenderism really not hurting anyone?

Is society so transphobic it's inventing crimes to put those experiencing positively harrowing gender dysphoria under lock and key?
Yes, mein liebchen, of course
 
I prefer it when entertainment isn't used as fodder for public intellectuals to take pot shots at one another.
Did you know Baa Baa Black Sheep is about wool taxes?
 
You're posting on BigFooty

The difference there is I can partake in discussions at my leisure, it's completely separate from the rest of my life. Coates and Petersen could hash out their differences on Twitter and spare the rest of us who just want to read a comic book.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top