Haha, I believe we mentioned that multiple times, did you miss it? He never clarifies what age other than saying pre-pubescent, but we addressed it multiple times. We also agreed with him, just not necessarily the way it's communicated through religious undertones.
@@payamjirsa You obviously did little to no research on his talks on the issue, as he defines it as anyone under 18 who is a minor. Do another episode or delete this one.
Thank you so much for that video. There is so much to unpack! - First, I must say it's a brilliant move (and a bold one?) to do that content. You'll probably get a hundred (if not more) comments. That's always the case when Peterson is involved. - Secondly, I totally understand the discomfort of Dr. Glen. You're right when you say the tone of a message says a lot. I think Peterson now is more and more a media/political persona, and some of the traits come with the territory, unfortunately. I also think you need to see his perspective: he faced first (and alone) issues on that topic (LGBTQ "Ideology", etc.) many years ago with bill C-16 in Canada, and that was the beginning of his troubles (and his success). Fast forward to 2022, it looks like events have proven him right on the political media/landscape (which is a circus btw). That reinforced his belief that a stand has to be retaken. He's now part of the "war on culture" battle. His partnership with the Daily Wire says it all (and I believe that ideas shape the world and that we're in a very intense period on that front). But by doing that, I feel sometimes it's less fun to listen to his content (his lecture on Pinocchio when he was at the university, etc., are so great). And I know I'm not the only one to miss that kind of energy. So, yes, perspectives... I also believe he's the one, to my knowledge, putting out an awesome high-quality podcast every week on fascinating topics with very knowledgeable (and diverse!) people. It's a treasure, whatever the side of the political spectrum you're on. Anyway, I think we're lucky someone like him put some light on the issue of sex reassignment/kids. That's definitely something that needs to be discussed seriously. I might be wrong, but even if the tone is not appealing, the message is right regarding the issue. Especially when it mixes with business interests/pharma in the US. Thank you so much for that discussion - it's really elevating to see two mature people unpacking spicy content with calm and rationality. That kind of content is much needed these days. Cheers from Canada!
Thank you for the comment! You're spot on in your take, tone and approach aside, the message is important. We both feel that the conversation (and his voice) are very important.
Regarding the tone: isn't it appropriate to have this kind of tone when we talk about children and their parents being misled, and operated in a name of an ideology?
It sounds like your fixation on his religious background is clouding your ability to understand where he is coming from a psychological and medical standpoint.
They are fixated on a religious background that they are sure of is there, when in fact they can’t be sure of its presence in his life at all, simply construing his speech to fit their imagined version of him onto the issue and why he is making a certain position at all. Simply put, reaching for an easy solve when it’s not so. Do another episode and do the issue justice.
6:50 I don't think you can assume that just because people have a lot of conviction to transition doing so is justified. By this logic it's justifiable to encourage weight loss in an anorexic person because they have a lot of conviction to be skinny. also 29:00 seems to sort of just presuppose the legitimacy of moral relativism over moral realism. Like, you wouldn't say it's just a difference of opinions when it comes to female genital mutilation - that practice is just objectively morally wrong. Most moral prescriptions are pretty meaningless unless you intend them to be universalized.
And I think it's also pretty far off to say that all of his gripes about "destruction" and the "appalling" nature of these things is only rooted in his religion. I am far from religious and couldn't agree more. The fact is that people with true gender dysphoria are a fraction of a fraction of our population. A large percentage of the kids who are being coaxed into transitioning are likely just gay and are being told that they were born in the wrong body because they don't show the classic traits of heterosexual males and females. Even though it has long been preached, for example, that just because you're a tomboy doesn't make you any less of a girl.
I don’t believe Jordan Peterson would classify himself as a Christian so his beliefs are not stemming from a religious perspective, he’s coming from a place of logic.
wow. You're both wrong off the bat. He's right. it is like a sacrifice. they can't reverse that and they are sacrificing the only natural body they will have, when they already can't find ways to love themselves. Guess what happens in a few years. way more depressed and no fixing it because of their sacrifice.
So you're saying that surgery (to change one's gender) is equal to sacrificing a baby to a god? Did you listen to the rest of our argument? Like when we said we agree with the message but not the religious undertones?
@@12weekrelationships Yes I did listen to it and I was happy to hear how you both met his statements closer in the middle. But I'm making a point solely on the religious connection. To answer your question to me, Yes. I do. I believe it is basically just as bad. I hope im remembering correctly, but I believe the statement was made in regards to a set of adult parents, as well as an obviously adult doctor all giving their approval, and going right ahead with taking a child, of which can be influenced 7 different directions in a half hour, and just without question, chop his turn his magic baby making staff, and making a pubic skid plate out of it.. That boy or girls life will be absolute confusion, pain, regret, extreme depression, helplessness, and likely suicide. What makes the comparison legitimate is that the baby was for acceptance and appeasement of God. These adults are doing the same, with the desire for a similar acceptance. Both pay a painful price. Both were unnecessary. One could even argue that the trans child is less humane, due to the almost guaranteed crippling depression. Also, those people 100% believed that baby's soul had the ultimate existence, as it was born as close to being without sin as possible, and immediately sent to their beautiful place of peace and perfection. No sadness. Direct. The parents and doctor in the latter, they most likely kniw the statistics and are welcoming it . So if Jordan was wrong in that, I might argue its a weaker comparison than intended
@@bobbysweeney5377 that's certainly an interesting perspective and take on maybe why he made such a comparison. For us, and specifically me (this is Pye), I felt like the argument is so powerful on its own. It's so easy to argue why a child shouldn't undergo a life-changing surgery before they've had time to sort through who they truly are. What's frustrating about Jordan's religious undertone is that it immediately adds another element (religion) to a debate that's pretty easy and straightforward on its own. It muddies the message and eliminates a large portion of the audience who will argue purely against the "extremely religious" undertone. And to that, they'll have a point. They'll be able to cancel out Jordan's voice, despite the fact that there's science backing why a child shouldn't undergo a permanent gender-altering surgery. Had he kept the argument simple and scientific, he would have left little room for a reasonable person to argue.
@@12weekrelationships I can agree with everything there. Even to the extent of the exclusion of religious references. However, I feel like most agnostics, atheists, and antitheists especially, have far too sensitive of a gag reflex the second a biblical story is referenced or compared, and I personally would love to see more of an attempt at true understanding and try for som e acceptance and inclusion for those that have their hearts and minds (peacefully) tied to a creator, a religious doctrine, or even just an expanded set of morals and ethics in regards. The thing is, most if not all of the time, a passionately devoted religious person can very accurately understand the perspectives of those that call it nonesense and can be empathetic enough to feel the "whys" explained by a non-believers on most topics. However, I've found the inverse to be unequivocally inaccurate or at the very least, radically faltered. This is because the passion that one gets for said faith, its only potentially empathically understood by nonbelievers if they do one thing. That is, think of that unwavering love one gets fir their baby child. It's incredible. It can change anyone that isn't suffering from psychopathy. Now take that powerful love, and drape it over what one feels is the source of their lives, their loved ones, all of the good things they love and appreciate, the stories given to lead the followers to their proper paths of salvation. Then expand that far more by incorporating the fact that this creator has an everlasting life in a kingdom of perfection for everyone Holy. No fear of death. No overwhelming sadness for loved ones passed. But in fact, joy for them. After all, they are in an immeasurably better place. But you get to go too. Its quite a beautiful feeling that I feel bad for anyone lacking that experience. I'm not a theist. Losing that one of the most depressing times for me for a bit. Even now after decades of using strictly science based logic, I always say that if there's one thing I miss, and painfully, its that feeling. Once a nontheist can truly start to empathize with that, they will see just why it is that a faith-based person just never really can quite seem to leave it out of their "whys".
I think the issue is that they are basing their opinion on the false context that he is a Christian, he’s not. He’s curious, and he believes that there is probably a God, and it’s “more than likely the God of Abraham”.
You keep bringing up his religious perspective. The guy tripped on 7g of mushrooms. The guy is agnostic through and through. He says he acts as if God exists, not that he believes in God’s existence. Your subjective belief in (a) god means nothing as to whether God actually exists or not. This deserves a re-record minus all the religious bashing when he isn’t genuinely religious. -An agnostic.
I've (Pye) listened to a lot of JP, if this is true, I definitely didn't know that. He very much speaks from a Christian perspective, so this is interesting for sure. For Doctor Glen, JP is new, so he was picking up on it even more than I was.
@@12weekrelationships His lectures on Abrahamic religions and his interpretations of symbolism don’t correlate to a personal belief in Christianity. He’s as unreligious as any horsemen, he just isn’t overt. He certainly gets drunk on symbols as R Dawkins said, but that doesn’t mean he believes in a god. lack of research on your part Pye, no offense. Listen to more. not remotely an excuse when you have a podcast production discussing such a critical issue such as the pharmaceutical corp exploits of minors and you fumble the basis of the intentions of his claim + argument, which is JPs position, M-I-N-O-R-S first not being capable of making the decision themselves due to not having a large enough perspective, thinking only short term, and lacking the understanding of the ramifications and financial incentives for surgeons and corporations, being sold a nice tale about how their issues will resolve themselves post op (for corporate gain) rather than letting a child develop normally and actually getting Cogntive Behavioral Therapy, which you failed to talk about at any length whatsoever. His argument pertains to Anyone under 18, he has defined it several times. If you failed to see/read that, you shouldn’t have done an episode on this shit. Relatively common sense. Personally a disappointment to me that you made the same mistakes more than several times in the same episode. Still enjoyed minor aspects of the ep regardless of your fumbling of his perspective. Anyone can use charged language to describe the systematic financial exploits and abuses of undeveloped minds/lives of children, and not have it have to be from a place of faith. So by this logic, I must be a zealot if I use grandiose vocab to describe double mastectomies and castrating preteens. It is not from a place of religion, if you insist so I can assure you and many others will, that you’re wrong. That’s why I said either re-record or release a statement.
Did you guys completely miss that he is talking about CHILDREN TRANSITIONING?
Haha, I believe we mentioned that multiple times, did you miss it? He never clarifies what age other than saying pre-pubescent, but we addressed it multiple times. We also agreed with him, just not necessarily the way it's communicated through religious undertones.
@@payamjirsa You obviously did little to no research on his talks on the issue, as he defines it as anyone under 18 who is a minor. Do another episode or delete this one.
I like this type of respectful disagreeing discussion
Glad you enjoyed! We agree, it's important to be able to debate and disagree respectfully.
Thank you so much for that video. There is so much to unpack!
- First, I must say it's a brilliant move (and a bold one?) to do that content. You'll probably get a hundred (if not more) comments. That's always the case when Peterson is involved.
- Secondly, I totally understand the discomfort of Dr. Glen. You're right when you say the tone of a message says a lot. I think Peterson now is more and more a media/political persona, and some of the traits come with the territory, unfortunately. I also think you need to see his perspective: he faced first (and alone) issues on that topic (LGBTQ "Ideology", etc.) many years ago with bill C-16 in Canada, and that was the beginning of his troubles (and his success). Fast forward to 2022, it looks like events have proven him right on the political media/landscape (which is a circus btw). That reinforced his belief that a stand has to be retaken. He's now part of the "war on culture" battle. His partnership with the Daily Wire says it all (and I believe that ideas shape the world and that we're in a very intense period on that front). But by doing that, I feel sometimes it's less fun to listen to his content (his lecture on Pinocchio when he was at the university, etc., are so great). And I know I'm not the only one to miss that kind of energy. So, yes, perspectives...
I also believe he's the one, to my knowledge, putting out an awesome high-quality podcast every week on fascinating topics with very knowledgeable (and diverse!) people. It's a treasure, whatever the side of the political spectrum you're on.
Anyway, I think we're lucky someone like him put some light on the issue of sex reassignment/kids. That's definitely something that needs to be discussed seriously. I might be wrong, but even if the tone is not appealing, the message is right regarding the issue. Especially when it mixes with business interests/pharma in the US.
Thank you so much for that discussion - it's really elevating to see two mature people unpacking spicy content with calm and rationality. That kind of content is much needed these days.
Cheers from Canada!
Thank you for the comment! You're spot on in your take, tone and approach aside, the message is important. We both feel that the conversation (and his voice) are very important.
Regarding the tone: isn't it appropriate to have this kind of tone when we talk about children and their parents being misled, and operated in a name of an ideology?
It sounds like your fixation on his religious background is clouding your ability to understand where he is coming from a psychological and medical standpoint.
They are fixated on a religious background that they are sure of is there, when in fact they can’t be sure of its presence in his life at all, simply construing his speech to fit their imagined version of him onto the issue and why he is making a certain position at all. Simply put, reaching for an easy solve when it’s not so. Do another episode and do the issue justice.
Please, Pye, can you make a meditation podcast. Your voice is very deep, it is very soothing and and calming.
6:50 I don't think you can assume that just because people have a lot of conviction to transition doing so is justified. By this logic it's justifiable to encourage weight loss in an anorexic person because they have a lot of conviction to be skinny. also 29:00 seems to sort of just presuppose the legitimacy of moral relativism over moral realism. Like, you wouldn't say it's just a difference of opinions when it comes to female genital mutilation - that practice is just objectively morally wrong. Most moral prescriptions are pretty meaningless unless you intend them to be universalized.
And I think it's also pretty far off to say that all of his gripes about "destruction" and the "appalling" nature of these things is only rooted in his religion. I am far from religious and couldn't agree more. The fact is that people with true gender dysphoria are a fraction of a fraction of our population. A large percentage of the kids who are being coaxed into transitioning are likely just gay and are being told that they were born in the wrong body because they don't show the classic traits of heterosexual males and females. Even though it has long been preached, for example, that just because you're a tomboy doesn't make you any less of a girl.
I don’t believe Jordan Peterson would classify himself as a Christian so his beliefs are not stemming from a religious perspective, he’s coming from a place of logic.
I understand he's using "destiny" in more of his archetypal language that he uses often in his speeches.
This is great content. Just got a new sub!
Welcome to the channel Cade!
I hope jordan himself sees it 🙏
Thank you!
wow. You're both wrong off the bat. He's right. it is like a sacrifice. they can't reverse that and they are sacrificing the only natural body they will have, when they already can't find ways to love themselves. Guess what happens in a few years. way more depressed and no fixing it because of their sacrifice.
So you're saying that surgery (to change one's gender) is equal to sacrificing a baby to a god? Did you listen to the rest of our argument? Like when we said we agree with the message but not the religious undertones?
@@12weekrelationships Yes I did listen to it and I was happy to hear how you both met his statements closer in the middle. But I'm making a point solely on the religious connection. To answer your question to me, Yes. I do. I believe it is basically just as bad. I hope im remembering correctly, but I believe the statement was made in regards to a set of adult parents, as well as an obviously adult doctor all giving their approval, and going right ahead with taking a child, of which can be influenced 7 different directions in a half hour, and just without question, chop his turn his magic baby making staff, and making a pubic skid plate out of it.. That boy or girls life will be absolute confusion, pain, regret, extreme depression, helplessness, and likely suicide. What makes the comparison legitimate is that the baby was for acceptance and appeasement of God. These adults are doing the same, with the desire for a similar acceptance. Both pay a painful price. Both were unnecessary. One could even argue that the trans child is less humane, due to the almost guaranteed crippling depression. Also, those people 100% believed that baby's soul had the ultimate existence, as it was born as close to being without sin as possible, and immediately sent to their beautiful place of peace and perfection. No sadness. Direct. The parents and doctor in the latter, they most likely kniw the statistics and are welcoming it . So if Jordan was wrong in that, I might argue its a weaker comparison than intended
@@bobbysweeney5377 that's certainly an interesting perspective and take on maybe why he made such a comparison.
For us, and specifically me (this is Pye), I felt like the argument is so powerful on its own. It's so easy to argue why a child shouldn't undergo a life-changing surgery before they've had time to sort through who they truly are. What's frustrating about Jordan's religious undertone is that it immediately adds another element (religion) to a debate that's pretty easy and straightforward on its own. It muddies the message and eliminates a large portion of the audience who will argue purely against the "extremely religious" undertone.
And to that, they'll have a point. They'll be able to cancel out Jordan's voice, despite the fact that there's science backing why a child shouldn't undergo a permanent gender-altering surgery. Had he kept the argument simple and scientific, he would have left little room for a reasonable person to argue.
@@12weekrelationships I can agree with everything there. Even to the extent of the exclusion of religious references. However, I feel like most agnostics, atheists, and antitheists especially, have far too sensitive of a gag reflex the second a biblical story is referenced or compared, and I personally would love to see more of an attempt at true understanding and try for som e acceptance and inclusion for those that have their hearts and minds (peacefully) tied to a creator, a religious doctrine, or even just an expanded set of morals and ethics in regards. The thing is, most if not all of the time, a passionately devoted religious person can very accurately understand the perspectives of those that call it nonesense and can be empathetic enough to feel the "whys" explained by a non-believers on most topics. However, I've found the inverse to be unequivocally inaccurate or at the very least, radically faltered. This is because the passion that one gets for said faith, its only potentially empathically understood by nonbelievers if they do one thing. That is, think of that unwavering love one gets fir their baby child. It's incredible. It can change anyone that isn't suffering from psychopathy. Now take that powerful love, and drape it over what one feels is the source of their lives, their loved ones, all of the good things they love and appreciate, the stories given to lead the followers to their proper paths of salvation. Then expand that far more by incorporating the fact that this creator has an everlasting life in a kingdom of perfection for everyone Holy. No fear of death. No overwhelming sadness for loved ones passed. But in fact, joy for them. After all, they are in an immeasurably better place. But you get to go too.
Its quite a beautiful feeling that I feel bad for anyone lacking that experience. I'm not a theist. Losing that one of the most depressing times for me for a bit. Even now after decades of using strictly science based logic, I always say that if there's one thing I miss, and painfully, its that feeling.
Once a nontheist can truly start to empathize with that, they will see just why it is that a faith-based person just never really can quite seem to leave it out of their "whys".
I think the issue is that they are basing their opinion on the false context that he is a Christian, he’s not. He’s curious, and he believes that there is probably a God, and it’s “more than likely the God of Abraham”.
Dope voices & mikes
Alison Junction
Great podcast but JP isn’t a christian.
You keep bringing up his religious perspective. The guy tripped on 7g of mushrooms. The guy is agnostic through and through. He says he acts as if God exists, not that he believes in God’s existence. Your subjective belief in (a) god means nothing as to whether God actually exists or not. This deserves a re-record minus all the religious bashing when he isn’t genuinely religious.
-An agnostic.
I've (Pye) listened to a lot of JP, if this is true, I definitely didn't know that. He very much speaks from a Christian perspective, so this is interesting for sure. For Doctor Glen, JP is new, so he was picking up on it even more than I was.
@@12weekrelationships His lectures on Abrahamic religions and his interpretations of symbolism don’t correlate to a personal belief in Christianity. He’s as unreligious as any horsemen, he just isn’t overt. He certainly gets drunk on symbols as R Dawkins said, but that doesn’t mean he believes in a god. lack of research on your part Pye, no offense. Listen to more. not remotely an excuse when you have a podcast production discussing such a critical issue such as the pharmaceutical corp exploits of minors and you fumble the basis of the intentions of his claim + argument, which is JPs position, M-I-N-O-R-S first not being capable of making the decision themselves due to not having a large enough perspective, thinking only short term, and lacking the understanding of the ramifications and financial incentives for surgeons and corporations, being sold a nice tale about how their issues will resolve themselves post op (for corporate gain) rather than letting a child develop normally and actually getting Cogntive Behavioral Therapy, which you failed to talk about at any length whatsoever. His argument pertains to Anyone under 18, he has defined it several times. If you failed to see/read that, you shouldn’t have done an episode on this shit. Relatively common sense. Personally a disappointment to me that you made the same mistakes more than several times in the same episode. Still enjoyed minor aspects of the ep regardless of your fumbling of his perspective. Anyone can use charged language to describe the systematic financial exploits and abuses of undeveloped minds/lives of children, and not have it have to be from a place of faith. So by this logic, I must be a zealot if I use grandiose vocab to describe double mastectomies and castrating preteens. It is not from a place of religion, if you insist so I can assure you and many others will, that you’re wrong. That’s why I said either re-record or release a statement.
This was a great content, but hey guys, you do know that Peterson is a cultural christian, right? He is not a believer in the traditional sence at all