Only after hours of pressure from many people they reinstated it silently.
We need anti-trust laws to curve this authoritarian Internet rising.
Openly anti-trans too.
A quick (and biased) search turns up:
"His employers have warned that, while they support his right to academic freedom and free speech, he could run afoul of the Ontario Human Rights code and his faculty responsibilities should he refuse to use alternative pronouns when requested."
Now I'm sure there's more to the issue, but that's kind of my point - increasingly, not ceding to every demand by group X is labelled as being 'anti-X', and ending any discussion.
No, he's actually anti-trans too.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/11/peterson-talk-dr...
Wouldn't it be more fair, even necessary, to just say "he doesn't want pronoun choice to be enforced, and doesn't think biological sex and gender are distinct"? Why distort his views by condensing them to 'anti-trans'?
That just makes him a dickhead that should be ignored.
> doesn't think biological sex and gender are distinct
Which makes him wrong, scientifically (his testimony to the Canadian Senate has him saying that because the vast majority of people express their biological* sex as their gender, it would violate causality to accept they weren't linked), and, because he keeps using this nonsense to push his "trans people are just SJW leftists trying to take control" rhetoric, that makes him anti-trans.
For more about the spectrum of biological sex (way more than 2) and the expressed biological genders that can result (more than 2, not necessarily matching the biological sex) -
> At the event, Peterson outlined his criticism of transgender people, arguing that the idea that biological sex and gender were independent quantities was “wrong.”
To me, his words directly quoted in that article are sufficient to show he's transphobic (but certainly doing a good job of cloaking it in "free speech" rhetoric.)
A fair point. But I'd suggest that if he was just actually arguing the free speech case, there would be no need for arguing whether trans people are a legitimate thing (cf his comments on biological sex <=> gender causality). His broadening of his argument to that and "leftists are trying to force new words into the language" (cf Canadian Senate testimony) suggests he's not actually entirely about the free speech but rather just finding a fanatical new audience for his railing against SJWs and snowflakes and political correctness.
> to suggest that Dr Peterson hates trans people
I'd say "anti-trans" rather than "hates trans" - there can be a world between those two viewpoints.
He is not against trans people at all. He is against being legally _forced_ to use dozens of new gender pronouns.
You keep using far left sources who don't back their claims. Jordan Peterson has hundreds of _hours_ of videos and lectures where he explais his positions. Link one of those to have an argument. Not some paraphrased nonsense to justify your position.
Do his words there count as "not some paraphrased nonsense"?