STEVE PAIKIN: What's in a name? Potentially, a great deal.
University of Toronto psychology
professor, Jordan Peterson, has a fight on
his hands after objecting to proposed
legislation that he says would violate
his freedom of speech by forcing him to
address transgendered people using the
pronouns of their choosing. Joining us
now to better understand the issue and
debate what's at stake: in Vancouver, British Columbia,
Theryn Meyer, transgender pundit and
YouTuber. In the nation's capital,
Kyle Kirkup, professor of law at the
University of Ottawa. And here in studio,
the aforementioned Jordan Peterson,
professor of psychology, University of Toronto.
Nicholas Matte, lecturer,
transgender studies at U of T.
And Mary Rogan, whose article entitled,
"Growing Up Trans" is featured in the October issue
of the Walrus magazine. Good to have you
three here and our two friends in
points beyond. We appreciate everybody
being on the program for what is, I think,
one of the hottest topics in the country
today, Professor Peterson – and it's all
because of you. And I think before we go
any further with our conversation here,
I want to give people a sense of how hot
this has got starting on the downtown
campus of the University of Toronto.
Sheldon if you would, roll it.
[audience members chanting] JORDAN PETERSON: Okay.
JORDAN: Well as you can see, the opponents of
free speech are capable of making a lot of
inarticulate noise. Free speech is the
mechanism by which we keep our society functioning.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hear, hear. AUDIENCE MEMBER: And by doing this, you're imposing –
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Wait! No! No! No! Not cool. Not cool.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm going to post this online – JORDAN: That's fine.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: – that you would like people to not – to be more
accommodating of trans people and people of color at your events in the future.
JORDAN: I would like there to be no violence.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I am a person of color. I am a person of color and I felt very accommodated here.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: There have been multiple reported instances of trans people
killing themselves because they are not being integrated into society.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: If it wasn't for this law,
and I asked you to refer to me with they/them pronouns, would you?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Why do you have the authority to determine
whether or not an individual is worthy
of you using their pronouns? Like, if I
asked you, "Would you please use they/them
pronouns for me?" what –
JORDAN: It would it would depend on what I thought of your motivation.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: What hoops do you want us to jump through?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Those are my pronouns.
STEVE: Okay, with indulgence
of everybody else on the program,
I'm going to start with Professor Peterson off
the top here for a while because, as I
suggested, you thought long and hard
about this. You posted a few things up to
YouTube because you had been thinking
long and hard about it. One-and-a-half
million hits later, Jordan – one and a half
million hits later – this has become a
huge issue. So let's start there. Why did
you post those views to YouTube in the first place?
JORDAN: Well, there's proximate and distal reasons.
The proximate reasons were
because I received some correspondence
from clients of mine who had
been, I would say, persecuted in a variety
of ways by people who were politically correct.
And they sent me some
documentation about Bill C16 and the
associated policy statements on the
Ontario Human Rights Commission, which I
read and was not very happy about.
And also because the University of Toronto
decided to make anti-racism and
anti-bias training – so-called anti-racism and
anti-bias training – mandatory, which I
regarded as an inappropriate incursion into the domain of political
opinion by the university administration.
STEVE: Have you taken that training yet? JORDAN: No, and
I don't have to yet. It's the HR
department personnel that have to take it.
STEVE: If they decide that you have to, will you?
JORDAN: No way. Not a chance.
STEVE: Okay. And what's the other – You referred to
persecution that friends or clients of
yours had experienced. Such as? JORDAN: Yeah, yeah. Well
there are lots of places now where the
workplace has become, I would say,
excessively politicized. And so, people
who have viewpoints – And this also
involves – includes, I would say, fairly
radical leftist viewpoints. People don't
feel comfortable at all in being
able to use the language of their choice
or to have even opinions about a variety
of different things. And so I've had
three clients who, I would say, have been
we'll say "harassed," I suppose, is the right
way of putting it.
STEVE: In social media or otherwise? JORDAN: No, at work. At work.
STEVE: At work. JORDAN: At work by people who
don't like their political opinions essentially.
STEVE: And the opinions were what?
JORDAN: Well, I can't tell you too much about it,
actually, because of issues –
fundamental issues of confidentiality. STEVE: All right. Give us –
Essentially, I guess what I'm asking is
to lay the case out. JORDAN: Well, one of – STEVE: What is it
you find offensive about this legislation?
JORDAN: Well, fundamentally, there
were two things that really bothered me,
although there have been other things
I've thought about since. One was that I
was being asked, as everyone is, to use a
certain set of words that I think are
the constructions of people who have a
political ideology that I don't believe
in and that I also regard as dangerous.
STEVE: What are those words? JORDAN: Those are
the made-up words that
people now describe as gender-neutral.
And so, to me, they're
an attempt to control language
and in a direction that isn't happening organically,
it's not happening naturally,
people aren't picking up these words in
the typical way that new words are
picked up, but by force and by fiat.
And I would say by force because there's
legislative power behind them. STEVE: So just so we're [clear] –
JORDAN: And I don't like these made-up words – ze, and zer and that
sort of thing. STEVE: Okay. What about the – They're not
all made up – quote-unquote made-up words.
JORDAN: Yeah. STEVE: For example, "they" is one of them –
to speak to an individual as they.
JORDAN: Yes, right. But we can't dispense with
the distinction between singular and plural.
I mean, I know that the advocates of that
particular approach say that "they" has
been used forever as a singular, and
that's actually not correct. It's used as
a singular in very exceptional
circumstances. Like, "If your child wishes
to bring a book to school, they're
welcome to do so." But "they" – STEVE: That's just
grammatically incorrect. JORDAN: Well, it is also. There's some
debate about that because it is – "they" is
used like that sometimes. But it's never
been used as a singular replacement
for he or she. STEVE: All right. JORDAN: And so it's not a
tenable solution. And that's the best of
the solutions. STEVE: So, we understand your
views and where you're coming from.
You've decided to lay these views out in
some YouTube discourses. JORDAN: Yes. STEVE: You put them up.
The response has been overwhelming.
JORDAN: Yes. STEVE: Did you anticipate that you would get
this kind of feedback? JORDAN: No, there was no
way of anticipating this. And I think – You
mentioned in the intro that
this is a consequence of what I've done.
And I don't think that's true. It's a
consequence of the fact – I thought
about it, and I think the right metaphor
is that there's a large forest,
and it's been a hot, dry summer, or maybe
a drought, and there's plenty of dead
wood gathered, and I lit a spark. And you
can't blame the forest fire on the spark.
It's just not possible for
someone to put up a YouTube video and
cause this kind of brouhaha without all
of the groundwork already being laid.
STEVE: Fair enough. There is clearly –
There is out there an appetite
against political correctness, which is
what you have described this as. In fact,
your YouTube video is called
"Professor Against Political Correctness." JORDAN: Mm-hmm. STEVE: But let's
make sure we're all speaking the same
language here. You would define that how?
Political correctness? JORDAN: Well, I think it's
a particular kind of ideological game. And I
think the outcome is twofold.
It's to make the player feel morally superior,
and also to take rather serious ax swings
at the foundation of society.
And so, the game is identify a domain of
human endeavor, note that there's a
distribution of success – some people are
doing comparatively better and some
people are doing comparatively worse –
define those doing worse as victims,
define those doing better as
perpetrators, identify with the victims,
have yourself a set of enemies handy to
vent your resentment on, feel good about
it even though it didn't really require
any work on your part, and then endlessly repeat.
And that's why – I've seen that happening
on campuses, in particular, for the last 30 years.
STEVE: In your YouTube talk, you
describe those who oppose you on this
issue as "resentful and uninformed."
JORDAN: Yes. STEVE: Tell me why you think that's accurate.
JORDAN: Well, I worked for the NDP when
I was a kid – STEVE: Okay. JORDAN: From the time I
was 14 to the time I was 18.
I worked with Rachel Notley's father and her mother,
and knew them very well. And I
actually found them very admirable
people, as well as the other people
on the socialist end of the
distribution who were genuinely working
for the rights of working-class
people – coming out of that Saskatchewan
tradition that established health care
and pension and all of that. But I noted,
at the same time, that the party
functionaries, let's say, weren't that
sort of person at all. They didn't really
like the working class. They weren't
standing up for them. And I couldn't
quite put my finger on it until I read
George Orwell's "Road to Wigan Pier,"
which is a brilliant book and which was
written for the Left Book Club in the UK.
And he was talking about the failures of
socialism in the United Kingdom,
and then discussed intellectual
socialists of the type who didn't
exactly like the poor – STEVE: Okay. JORDAN: They just hated the rich.
STEVE: "Resentful and uninformed," though?
JORDAN: Yes. Well, the resentful part is the
willingness to pull down any structure
that's hierarchical because of
resentment about not being on the top.
And uninformed is, well, it's the
consistent attempt to force every
political issue into a single –
into the domain encompassed and viewed
through this single lens. STEVE: Jordan, let's do
one more question here, and then we'll
get everybody else into the conversation.
You know, of course, that since this story broke,
you've been called a lot of things –
JORDAN: Yep. STEVE: – one of which is a "transphobe." JORDAN: Yeah.
STEVE: Some people have accused you of using
the free-speech issue to mask what's
really going on here, which is an attempt
to deprive other people of what they
believe are their legitimate rights. JORDAN: Well, I can –
STEVE: And I want to give you the opportunity to speak
to whether or not you are a transphobe.
JORDAN: Well, I can tell you that
I've received more letters from
transsexual people supporting me than
opposing me. And I never said anything,
really, about transsexual people,
about their existence, although that was the
first thing that I was accused of doing.
I didn't say that transsexual people
didn't exist. I said that gender identity, gender expression,
and biological sex do not vary
independently, which they don't. And so,
this issue is, in some sense,
only peripherally about about transsexual issues.
It's more essentially about
gender issues. And, then on top of that –
and I think it's the biggest issue –
is that it's a free speech issue. So – STEVE: Okay.
Let us continue to explore all of those
issues that you have just raised and –
Why don't we do this? Let's take a moment.
We're gonna explain a few basic things here.
The issue of so-called
non-traditional pronouns goes together
with non-traditional gender identities.
New York City, for example, recognizes 31
such gender expressions. In other words,
besides "man" and "woman," there are 29 other
gender expressions. For example, "pangender,"
"queer gender," "gender fluid," "crossdresser,"
"bi-gendered," "gender blender," and the list goes on.
And Nicholas, this is where I
want to bring you into the discussion
because you teach this. You teach trans studies.
So, if you would, give us a brief
primer on so many gender identities that,
in your view, require non-traditional pronouns.
NICHOLAS MATTE: Basically, it's not correct that
there is such a thing as biological sex.
And I'm a historian of medicine.
I can unpack that for you at great length if
you want. But in the interest of time,
I won't. So that's a very popular misconception.
So, essentially, in my
transgender studies classes, what we're
doing is looking at actual research and
identifying ways that current social
issues related to trans people or things
that are associated with trans, such as
free-speech arguments and claims,
how that connects to the way that people are thinking,
the way that research has been
framed, the histories have been framed. STEVE: Give us some of
the other pronouns that one would hear – typically.
NICHOLAS: I don't focus on pronouns
because pronouns are actually part of
a cisnormative culture. So what we do is learn about –
STEVE: I'm gonna stop you right there.
NICHOLAS: Yes, I was just about to explain. STEVE: Good.
NICHOLAS: So, we don't start from a cisnormative
perspective because that can't actually
go very far. STEVE: What does cisnormative mean?
NICHOLAS: So, I'm gonna start us there.
Cisnormative is basically the very popular idea and
assumption that most people probably have –
and definitely that our structures convey –
that there is such a thing as
male and female, that they connect to
being a girl or a boy or a man or a woman,
and then sometimes that will also
recognize intersex or trans people or
transsexual people, as you mentioned,
because that's – It's sometimes also referred
to as a gender binary. So, anything that
fits within a gender binary can work
within cisnormativity. STEVE: Okay.
NICHOLAS: But cisnormativity is basically that everyone
assumes that there is male and female,
and so very little is actually looked at
to understand what's actually the case.
And scientists have been doing this for at least over 50 years.
STEVE: Because your view would be it's much more complicated than that.
NICHOLAS: Right. It's not my view,
I just know that, for over 50 years,
scientists have shown that that's not true.
And yet, our social systems haven't
been able to find a way to address
the level of complexity that people actually experience.
JORDAN: At what point can I step in, Steve?
STEVE: Stand by for a second – JORDAN: Okay.
STEVE: – because I want to let everybody else get in first, and then we'll get you in.
NICHOLAS: And I didn't interrupt you either, so –
STEVE: Mary, how prevalent is transgenderism in our world?
MARY ROGAN: I don't think I can –
I don't think I can answer that question.
I think that I would agree with Nicolas that
there is some discrepancy on these
numbers and there is some variance on
the numbers. I guess I'm curious
as to why we need need to put a
number on this. Because that's come up.
I listened to Jordan's video,
and that was something that was mentioned.
This is, statistically –
there are so few intersex people as to be –
it's insignificant.
STEVE: Well, I think there's a reasonable curiosity
as to whether or not we're talking about half the population
or less than 1% of the population. That's all.
MARY: No, I understand that. I guess what I'm
saying is it seems that there's a focus
on that in terms of what we know now.
And I think what Nicholas is trying to try
to say – and I don't want to
presume too much – I think that
that number is going to be something that
evolves as we evolve and our language
evolves and we give people the room to
come forward and express who they are.
STEVE: Okay. Let me – As part of that expression
and evolution of this issue, the use of
non-traditional pronouns, where are you on that?
MARY: I think people should be able to
say how they want to be addressed.
I do believe that. In my own experience in
writing the Walrus piece,
I began at one place and ended at another.
And I'll let everyone pay their $7 to find out how.
STEVE: [chuckles] MARY: They can buy the magazine.
But I think that, for me,
identifying as male at a very late
stage in my life, I don't have –
I didn't have a lot of attachment to the pronoun "she."
You could have said "giraffe."
I had found a way at a very early age not to
even hear that word. It meant nothing to me.
So I didn't dive into the pronoun "he."
STEVE: So, if I were going to refer to you,
though, in the third person – MARY: "They." STEVE: – you would want me to call you "they."
MARY: Yes. STEVE: Okay. Because that encapsulates what?
MARY: I think it reflects where I am right now.
Because of my lived experience –
five decades as being identified –
certainly by the world – as female –
some of the time, not all
of the time – my lived experience was
largely female, and I personally am not
sort of ready to jump in wholly into
having people call me "he."
But I'm certainly far enough along
in terms of how I feel internally
that I don't want to be called "she."
STEVE: Understood. Let's go to British Columbia.
Theryn, I want you to help us understand
for our viewers who don't know you
and don't know your work,
I would like you to describe yourself.
THERYN: Well, I make political commentary –
mostly on YouTube.
And I mostly focus on basically countering –
with my own personal perspectives –
countering what I consider to be
the kind of hegemony surrounding –
the political hegemony – surrounding trans politics,
and what I consider to be
quite ridiculous opinions and demands
coming from what has come to be known as
kind of the political trans lobbying.
STEVE: I'm not as good at this issue
as I should be, so I'm going to look to you
to help me use the right words here
to describe how you were born
and what you see yourself as now.
So is it accurate to say you're a trans woman?
THERYN: Yes I'm, I'm – Oh [frustration].
I wish I would have lived in a world
where that was just obvious
and I don't have to explain that to people.
But, apparently, I do.
I mean, "Yes, I'm just a woman."
STEVE: Is this to say
you were born male but now are female?
THERYN: Yes. I transitioned from male to female. And, yeah.
STEVE: In which case, do I refer to you –
I'm gonna ask you the same question
I asked Mary, which is
do I refer to you as her or she now?
THERYN: Yes, you do.
STEVE: I do. Okay.
And how do you relate to the experiences
that we have heard arise during this
debate where gender identities and
pronouns are up for grabs, if you like?
I am very skeptical of the ideology
surrounding gender identity.
I don't believe there are
29-plus gender identities or genders.
I believe there's male and female and
then there's somewhere in between and
most people fall along that. And just people
who are in-between does not constitute a new gender.
There are two genders – period.
And that is, biologically, a sound argument to make.
Just because the argument that was made
earlier in the show is that –
It wasn't an argument, but a claim –
that there is no such thing as biological sex.
Well, that's simply not true.
It is true that there are
multiple characteristics and there are
multiple factors that go into determining sex,
and that sex is not on-off switch –
that there is a spectrum to it,
just like with most things in nature.
Most things aren't an on-off switch.
Most things develop on a spectrum.
But for the most part,
the vast majority of people fall
either on the male side or on the female side.
And yes, it's true that scientists –
that doctors have – and researchers – have been
finding more and more factors that go into,
not only determining genetic sex,
but determining the expression of those genes.
So it's truly a fascinating, complex field of study.
But that does not mean that there is
no such thing as biological sex. STEVE: Okay.
THERYN: When it comes to the issue of pronouns,
would you like me to give you my opinion on it?
STEVE: Yeah, briefly if you would because
Kyle has been the most patient person in
the world waiting for his chance to get in.
So, yes, you finish your statement and
then I'm gonna get to Kyle.
THERYN: Okay. My apologies.
Well, firstly, I have a lot of sympathy
for people who want to be referred to
by their pronouns. Obviously, as a trans woman,
I know what it feels like to be
misgendered and whatnot.
And most people are reasonable in the sense that
they would be reasonable enough
to accommodate trans people and
their preferred pronouns.
And I'm sure – I mean, I would hope that
if I were a student of Dr. Peterson,
that he would refer to me as "she"
and wouldn't have a problem with that.
But at the end of the day,
our personal-pronoun preference, it still is a preference
for what language other people use.
And at the end of the day, I don't have
ultimate control over what Dr. Peterson –
what the language he chooses to use or
anybody else for that matter.
That's up to them. And the problem arises –
STEVE: Okay. Let me find out then.
Let me find out. If she were a student of yours, what would you call her?
JORDAN: "She." STEVE: You would. Okay.
We've established that. Theryn, stand by
for a second now. I do want – [chuckles]
Thank you for your patience, Professor Kirkup.
And I want to bring you in now because,
as I suggested earlier, in New York City,
they have identified 31 gender identities.
And apparently the law down
there suggests that if businesses don't
accommodate an individual's chosen
gender identity, there is the risk of
a six-figure fine under the rules
of the city's Commissioner of Human Rights.
We have, in the province of Ontario
our own Ontario Human Rights Commission,
and I wonder how similar our
legislation is here on this issue
compared to what they have in New York City.
KYLE: So, where I would start the discussion
is to actually point out that
even though we're talking about adding
gender identity and gender expression to
the Canadian Human Rights Act and
provisions of the Criminal Code
this is a long-standing practice in Canadian
human-rights jurisprudence. You can go
back into the late 1990s. And the cases
that we're seeing in the tribunals are
not the kind of extreme examples of
a number of different kinds of gender pronouns.
What we're seeing is really
more basic human rights questions.
So, questions like are you required
to undergo surgery in order to have
an identity document that properly captures
who you are as a person?
Discrimination in policing contexts,
discrimination in the workplace.
And so, I think the pronoun issue
is really a red herring.
When you look through the jurisprudence
dating back to the 1990s,
we're seeing much more fundamental questions –
really basic human rights questions –
that are coming before the tribunals.
And having reviewed the case law,
I'm not seeing the kind of New York scenario
that you're proposing at all.
STEVE: Well, let me read some of
the Ontario Human Rights Code to you
and then I'll get your feedback on that.
"Discrimination," the Human Rights Code
says, "happens when a person experiences
negative treatment or impact, intentional or not,
because of their gender identity
or gender expression. It can be direct
and obvious or subtle and hidden,
but harmful just the same. It can also happen
on a bigger systemic level such as
organizational rules or policies that
look neutral but end up excluding trans people. ...
Organizations are liable for any
discrimination and harassment that happens.
They are also liable for not
accommodating a trans person's needs
unless it would cause undue hardship."
And again, Kyle, I'll get you to follow up on
that inasmuch as if a trans person or
somebody whose gender identity was more,
shall we say, complicated than the male/female
that we've been talking about so far,
and the pronoun used to describe
that person were not traditional,
would the person have a case
before the Human Rights Commission?
KYLE: So, we haven't seen
cases on that at this point. But I would
say absolutely as a rule of –
as a general rule that you should be thinking
about in terms of employment settings,
absolutely, respecting trans persons'
pronoun choice is really fundamental.
And I can also say that in lots of circumstances,
a pronoun may not even be required.
There are lots of creative ways to avoid using
gender pronouns at all. And so, I think that –
But when you actually look at
the cases that are coming before tribunals,
we're not seeing that to be, really,
the primary issue. It's much more
basic human rights questions,
which is what the federal legislation here,
Bill C16, tries to accomplish.
STEVE: All right. I think we've set the table now.
You want to get in on this now, I can tell.
You've heard what the professor has to say.
What's your response?
JORDAN: Well, I don't understand
what the claim that
there's no such thing as biological sex means.
And I certainly think it's – let's call it
an error – to suggest that there's some
sort of scientific consensus about that.
I mean, there's biological differences
between males and females
in animals and human beings
at every level of analysis from the –
STEVE: Okay. I'm jumping in here. JORDAN: Yeah.
STEVE: Because what about the notion
he put forward at the end there
that if you do not refer to people
with the pronoun that they prefer to be
referred to, that is a form, according to
the Human Rights Commission, of discrimination?
JORDAN: It's not just a form of discrimination,
it's a form of hate speech.
That's why I made the video.
I said that we were in danger of placing
the refusal to use certain kinds of language
into the same category as Holocaust denial,
and suggested that maybe
that wasn't such a good idea –
especially since there's plenty of debate
to be had about gender issues in our society,
which I also think are also
in danger of becoming illegal, and quite rapidly.
So, it isn't clear to me how long
we'll be able to have the talk
that we're having right now. STEVE: Here are some –
KYLE: Can I jump in there –
Can I jump in there on – STEVE: Please.
KYLE: I think it's a common misconception
about Bill C16 that it's somehow going
to make pronoun use into hate speech.
If you actually look at the provisions,
we're talking about very minor amendments
to the criminal code.
For example, Section – JORDAN: They're not minor.
They put it into the hate-speech category. They're not minor at all.
That's a misstatement. THERYN: I actually agree with you on that point.
JORDAN: So don't tell me they're minor. THERYN: I think there's a lot of opportunity here –
JORDAN: That's not – that's not right. THERYN: There's a lot of opportunity opening.
KYLE: So Section – STEVE: Kyle, go ahead.
KYLE: So, Section 318 – Pardon me.
So, Section 318 sets out a series of identifiable groups,
and we're talking about the clearest of cases –
the cases of advocating genocide.
And we have a series of groups
that are already identified in the code.
And all this does is add gender identity and
gender expression to the categories
that are already identified. And so, I think we
really have to add some reasonableness
to this discussion, actually clearly
articulate what the provision does.
STEVE: Well, let me be a little clearer about what
some of the problems – what you might be
asking for if you want to do this.
For example, and Sheldon, bottom of Page 3 here,
let's put this graphic up.
"[P]ronoun misuse may become actionable
through the Human Rights Tribunals and the courts.
And the remedies? Monetary damages,
non-financial remedies, (for example,
ceasing the discriminatory practice or
reinstatement to the job), and public interest
remedies (for example, changing
hiring practices or developing
non-discriminatory policies and procedures).
Jail time is not one of them."
Jordan, you're not going to go to jail if
you keep this up. Do you find that reassuring?
JORDAN: What if I don't pay the fine?
STEVE: Then what? JORDAN: Then what? And let's talk about
the legalities for a minute. As you know,
the University of Toronto sent me
two warning letters – right? – and the second one
basically asked me to stop talking about this.
STEVE: Who sent the letters? JORDAN: The first –
It's the administration, fundamentally,
the higher up people in the administration.
The last one was the Dean of the Faculty
of Arts and Science.
But it's coming from
the top end of the university.
STEVE: And the letter said essentially
you you must call people by
the pronouns they want?
JORDAN: The letters basically said that –
and this is paraphrasing, obviously –
that I'm required to abide by the university
policies and the Ontario Human Rights Code.
And there's a strong implication in the letter,
by having this discussion,
that I wasn't doing so.
And so, they're asking me to stop.
And I can tell you also
why they're asking me to stop
apart from that. The codes, as written,
make the university just as liable
for my speech as I am. So, not only is
there a reasonable possibility that what
I'm doing is uttering hate speech now
under our law, but the university is
legally responsible for that.
And so, I think they consulted with their lawyers
and decided that maybe the claim that
I was making in my video was correct – that –
So – And so, I don't regard that as trivial.
And I think that
the lawyer who's discussing this is
downplaying the significance of it tremendously.
NICHOLAS: Could I speak to the campus
climate about this?
STEVE: Go ahead. NICHOLAS: Because I don't agree with
why Dr. Peterson has been asked
to stop abusing students on campus.
JORDAN: To stop doing what? NICHOLAS: Abusing students –
JORDAN: I see. NICHOLAS: – and other members of
our learning community who do deserve
respect and do deserve to be able to work
and learn and contribute to society
in a place where, if they are physically assaulted,
if they are – JORDAN: The assaults so far
came from the social-justice warriors
who were at this free-speech rally and
almost 2 million people have watched those, so far.
NICHOLAS: This is not accurate. This is not accurate.
JORDAN: Well, you can look at the videos yourself
NICHOLAS: You are being actioned because people
have been making complaints about your behavior.
JORDAN: Yes, I understand that.
NICHOLAS: Yes. and so we're seeing
a greater opportunity for social justice
happening that many people won't understand.
STEVE: Nick, can I be clear on something?
You've accused him of abusing
students by not using the pronouns they
want to be addressed by.
NICHOLAS: That's how I see it. Absolutely.
STEVE: That is tantamount to abuse in your view.
NICHOLAS: Absolutely!
Many, many global documents, many organizations –
JORDAN: How about violence? Is it tantamount to violence?
NICHOLAS: Yes. Absolutely.
JORDAN: How about hate speech? Is it tantamount to hate speech?
NICHOLAS: Yes! Of course, it's hate speech. JORDAN: Fine. That's –
NICHOLAS: – to tell someone that you won't refer to them as –
in a way that they –
that recognizes their humanity and dignity.
STEVE: Mary, let me get you in on this at this point. MARY: Sure. [chuckles]
STEVE: You've got something you want to say or can I put a question to you?
MARY: Uh, both go ahead. STEVE: Okay. MARY: Put the question and I'll –
STEVE: You're a writer, Mary. MARY: I am.
STEVE: I know you care about free speech because you're a writer.
MARY: Yes. STEVE: Does Jordan Peterson
have a little place in your heart
because he's arguing free speech here?
MARY: I think the interesting thing about
Jordan and how I feel about his video –
And Jordan and I actually had an
opportunity to talk at length before
I wrote The Walrus article. And he sails
really close to things that I think
people can relate to. And I think that we
all want to have an open
discourse, we want conversations to
unfold, we want people to feel like they –
if they have something to say – if they
have a question, they can ask it –
that they're not going to be censored.
But he sails really close and then right past it.
And that's where he and I part ways
because what I don't really understand
is when you listen to the video,
he piles a lot of things into the basket of
using the pronouns that people want.
And it seems to me –
And you can correct me if I'm wrong.
But one of his anxieties –
And he talks about being
fearful and anxious in his video –
that somehow there's a cabal of trans activists
who have so much power that
they are going to basically –
Using the pronouns that people want
and capitulating to these demands
sort of pulls out the
critical Jenga piece of
the Western canon, right? [chuckles] I mean, basically,
Jordan is arguing that this is going to
create chaos and anarchy and
that it's essentially a Marxist plot that
is there to sow violence and there to
sow confusion and topple any kind of hierarchy.
STEVE: Can I just jump in there for a second?
Is that an accurate characterization of your view on this?
MARY: I listened really closely to that tape.
I think it is. STEVE: Is it – In your view, has she
accurately characterized where you're coming from?
JORDAN: It's not a transexual cabal
by any stretch of the imagination.
Is it a cabal of radical left-wingers?
Yes. It's a cabal of radical left-wingers,
and they've been active behind and in
front of the scenes increasingly over
the last 30 years. And my estimation is
that departments like Women Studies have
trained between 300,000
and 3 million radical left-wing activists.
And they're making – MARY: And they're all
underpaid, so don't worry. [LAUGHS] JORDAN: Well, they could
pick higher-paying occupations if they
wanted higher-paying occupations. But –
NICHOLAS: Because sexism does not exist. [chuckles]
Are you kidding me?
STEVE: Let's not get off topic here, folks. Go ahead, Mary.
NICHOLAS: I think we're directly on point. STEVE: Mary, come on back.
[inaudible crosstalk] MARY: So, I think Jordan has conceded that –
I think I've grasped his concern At the very least, I've grasped the concern
that there is a kind of chipping away
at order as we've come to know it.
The other thing that Jordan and I have in
common is a real interest in language,
and the idea of what can happen when
language changes, when it evolves.
And I was thinking before I came here –
I was thinking about – I grew up in the Bronx
and I was born in '61. So, I remember very well
when we went from "Mrs." to "Ms."
And my father was appalled. And he kept
saying "Ms" and he thought was funny
because if you couldn't actually identify somebody as
either – particularly a female – as either
married or single, then – chaos, right? STEVE: The notion of
characterizing a woman independent of
her marital status was controversial at the time. MARY: That's right. And apparently very,
very confusing. And so, I'm reminded of
that when there's the –
when the suggestion is made that somehow if we
have words that don't fit into
something that we're very familiar with
and that we've used to date, that chaos
will ensue, that everyone will be confused. I don't believe that. JORDAN: Well, there's two differences.
MARY: There's no evidence of that historically.
STEVE: I hear you. But there was no law
obliging people to use the word "Ms."
MARY: But there were laws to oblige
people to change the way that we
referred to Black people, for example.
There was a time when
there were any number of words that we
now can only say as letters. Can I say
them on TVO? People were called "darkies,"
"niggers," "coons" in polite company. And that evolved.
Those things changed. When I was
a teenager, people were still using those words.
STEVE: So, this is a natural evolution in in your view.
MARY: This is a natural evolution.
And nobody's – Chaos will not ensue. And – JORDAN: If it's a natural
evolution, then we don't need hate-speech
law to enforce it. MARY: But we obviously –
we do because we can drive social change.
And it doesn't all have to lead to chaos
is my point. And I think that
we have seen the flip side of –
Jordan's argument – I think – has in fact – we
do have a historical record of that.
So, when it was left to others to name
people, we lost indigenous names.
I come from – My mother's from Ireland.
She was from a generation that finally got to
learn her own language again.
She couldn't even speak Gaelic to her
parents because they hadn't been allowed
to speak it. So we know. We've seen the
effect when people can't use their own
language, when they can't use their own names.
STEVE: Okay. Let me get Jordan to respond to that.
A natural evolution of things, Jordan.
That's how it's being described. JORDAN: Look. Words are tools.
Maybe that was one of the great philosophical
discoveries of the 20th century.
And that means – And people are always
looking for new tools to operate in the world.
And if you invent a good tool,
like a new word, then people will pick it up
just as fast as they possibly can.
You really see that in English. But the words
that are being required now are not good
tools and that's why people aren't using them.
And so, instead, what we have is the
use of force, despite the fact that
that's being denied – although we've
already established that, at least in the
opinion of one of the people on this
panel, I'm already guilty of a hate crime,
which is what I said I was guilty of
when I made that video.
The issue with the law is quite
straightforward. The government is
responding – is requiring us to use
certain language. That's not the same as
not using certain language. And it's a
line – And this is the fundamental issue.
This is maybe the fundamental issue.
That's a line we should not cross.
We should not allow the government to
decide which words we're allowed to use.
It's a mistake – and it's a mistake that
strikes right at the heart of free speech.
And the thing about free speech
is that it's not the right to
criticize your leaders, which is what
people usually characterize it as.
Freedom of speech is freedom to engage
in the processes that we use to
formulate the problems in our society,
to generate solutions to them, and reach a
consensus. It's actually a mechanism –
it's not just another value. And you should
put constraints on free speech with the
most extreme caution because you
interfere with people's ability to think
and communicate. STEVE: Let me get Theryn to
weigh in. Theryn, you've been hearing the
debate here in the studio. Why don't you
weigh in and pick it up? THERYN: Well, I guess I'm
in the same boat as Dr. Peterson when
it comes to being guilty of a hate crime –
or a – sorry – a hate-speech infringement –
because, I mean, I draw the line somewhere.
For example, I refuse to use pronouns
like "zes" and "zir." I don't have a problem
using "they/them/their" pronouns –
and that also happens just to be because of
the circles in which I move. I happen to
know people who use gender-neutral
pronouns so I've gotten used to it.
But the vast majority of people are not
going to come into contact with the
incredibly small fraction of the
population of gender non-binary people.
And that's why this is never
really going to pick up,
in my opinion. When it comes to
"Mrs." and "Ms.," at least half of
the population is female, so there was
some interaction with the term "Mrs."
versus "Ms.," and there were some
interactions so people could pick it up.
There just aren't enough gender
non-binary – I use that in quotation marks,
because I hate that term because it's a
political term not a gender
identity or a term of
identification. It's just a political term.
But regardless, I don't think it's
going to pick up. There's just not enough
of these people to interact with.
STEVE: The Twittersphere has been buzzing with this conversation.
And let's just pull one up here.
Let's pull up one tweet. This was
tweeted to a number of people including,
as you can see in the middle, Jordan B. Peterson,
who's on our program tonight.
"I so look forward to Bill C16 putting
your kind of silly trolling to an end," it says.
There are people – Let's go to our
Professor Kyle in Ottawa. "There are
people out there who hope that C16 lives
up to Jordan's worst fears. Do you agree
that C16 ought to be able to prevent
people from expressing negative opinions
about transgender people?" KYLE: So, first I want
to clarify that Bill C16 only applies to
federally-regulated entities.
So, for example, the University of Toronto is
under provincial jurisdiction, so it is
therefore subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code.
So, I think that's an
important point to note. I also want to
note there's been a lot of talk about
hate crimes. That seems to be
kind of an American import into our discussion.
The only two changes that
this Bill C16 make are to make minor
amendments to Section 318 and 718 of the Criminal Code.
The first is advocating genocide,
as I've talked about – a very, very extreme, high standard.
And then second off,
at sentencing, after an offense has been
committed and the person has been found guilty,
what 718 does is it tells judges that
they ought to treat hate motivation as
an aggravating factor at sentencing –
to treat that as a more severe form.
And currently, we have a series of identities
that are set out in 718 – things like sexual
orientation, race. We don't have currently
gender identity and gender expression there.
And so, that's what this does.
So, I think – I just want to make it very
clear that we ought not to be importing
American concepts into the discussion here.
And so, to the extent that Bill C16
makes changes only to – in the Canadian
Human Rights Act context – to federally
regulated entities, which is not the
University of Toronto. STEVE: Nicholas, let me
follow up with you. Why in your view do
you think the trans community needs this
kind of legislative protection?
NICHOLAS: Well, thank you. That's basically the point
that hasn't been raised yet which is
that people are actually suffering huge
lack of access to resources that will
allow people to survive. So, people are
being physically assaulted, people do not
have counselors that they can go to who
are not going to – as Dr. Peterson has
done on YouTube – recommend that they
actually become more anxious and more
upset about situations. People are being assaulted.
I brought all sorts of really
depressing stats that – People who are
leaning towards thinking that this is
not that big of a deal, those people need
to look at those stats. But many people – STEVE: Give us one. Give us one stat.
NICHOLAS: Yeah. So, 58% of students
could not get academic transcripts with
their correct name or pronoun.
That causes a huge chain of events for
students or anybody who's had any kind
of academic training. As everyone
recognizes, we need to be able to have
references, we need to be able to have resumes,
we need to be able to get jobs.
STEVE: So, I want to be sure that I'm
clearly understanding your point here,
which is – and therefore they feel disrespected,
and therefore this affects their life in
a very real way? Is that right?
NICHOLAS: The feeling of disrespect is not as
important as the ways that people in
authority are able to circumvent the
possibilities for living. So, it has more
to do with not being able to find housing,
and therefore being homeless.
It has more to do with not being able to get
jobs because people are discriminated against.
So we're not actually talking –
we shouldn't be talking about free speech.
What we should be talking about are the
social issues facing people who are
being discriminated against
and what that looks like on campus –
which is that some professors refuse to offer
basic dignity to students and colleagues.
And that leads to people missing classes,
it leads to people dropping out, it leads
to a lack of positive opportunity for
society to actually benefit from the
contributions of many, many people.
And I also don't teach that there's a huge
divide between trans people and
non trans people because I would say
the number is 100% of people
will benefit from more open discussion.
And one of the problems is that
it's being addressed in a black-and-white way.
So, it's too bad that we can't actually
have an open conversation because there's
a huge wall of violence between us.
STEVE: Here is somebody who did not
share your view on that because we
invited another guest to be on the
program today. And this person initially
said "yes," and then sent a Facebook
message to our producer [unknown]
[? Schamberg] saying, "You know what?
Changed my mind." "Giving Jordan Peterson this
platform serves to legitimize
his views which are based on bigotry and misinformation.
The humanity and rights
of transgender non-binary and intersex
people are not a matter of debate,
and holding a debate which places a false
equivalency between the views expressed
by Peterson and the human rights
concerns of the trans community would be
an act of transphobia. Therefore, none of
us wish to participate in this." Okay.
NICHOLAS:Thank you. Thank you for reading that. It was a very
important perspective. STEVE: That's why I read it. I
wonder whether, Jordan,
everybody's talking past each other here.
You are trying to make a point about free speech.
JORDAN: I don't think we're talking past each other.
STEVE: The other side – Well, but the others – You're
trying to make a point about free speech.
The other side is trying to make
a point about the rights – the human
rights of trans people. That's not the
point that you're trying to make.
Do we have two different groups here that are
trying to make two different points and
they find themselves in the same bowl of soup,
and that's why this has turned into
the conflagration it has?
JORDAN: Well, it's partly that, because the issues we're
discussing have to center on some
actual issues, and they happen to be
centering on the issue surrounding
transgender language. But I don't think
we're talking past each other at all in
a fundamental sense. I mean, I think that
the real problem here is that
there's a concerted attempt made being
made by many people to
subvert all values to the value of equality of outcome.
And we need more than one value,
first of all, if we're going to survive
as a society, because you can't solve
every problem with the same approach.
But there are more insidious things, in my
estimation, going on underneath.
I mean even the the missive that you just read
said that, well, even providing me with a
platform – let's call it – to express my
views is something that shouldn't be allowed.
It's like, "Yes, that's why I made the video."
It was because many people are
claiming that the expression of these
sorts of views should no longer be permitted.
And it's this view for now.
But this is a minor issue in some ways
compared to the larger issue that's at stake,
which is our right to have
discussions of this sort at all.
Like, I mean, one thing that happened right when
we started this was that there was an
initial claim, for example, that there's
no such thing as biological sex.
Well, I believe quite firmly that if we continue
on our present path at the universities
for five more years, that's a discussion we
will not actually be able to have on campuses.
Because – STEVE: Because you believe – JORDAN: By fiat. I mean,
the legislation already implicitly presumes
that biological sex, gender identity,
and gender expression – which we haven't
even talked about yet – vary independently.
That is simply not true. STEVE: Theryn, there –
the person who sent that Facebook message
thinks that we're partaking in
transphobia just by having this debate.
I hope that's not the case. But I wonder if
you could give us your explanation for
why some people adamantly refuse even
to have this discussion – that the notion
of having this discussion is somehow transphobic.
THERYN: I think it has to do with –
There's a lacking when it
comes to actually being able
to defend your points through argument.
So, if you open up the discussion for argument,
they know they will lose.
I think it's absolutely ludicrous and
insane to say that having this
discussion is, by default, transphobic.
I think it's even more – it's equally
ludicrous to call Dr. Peterson – what he
said – transphobic. I think it takes –
Using that term so willy-nilly,
it takes the emotional response to
a term like "transphobia" and [conflates] it
with something as, in my opinion,
as productive as having an open discussion.
And I think that's very insidious.
And I think that's very manipulative.
STEVE: Kyle? Are we being transphobic here by
having this debate? KYLE: Well, I do worry about
setting up a false equivalency
in this conversation and really even having –
making the premise that trans lives are
up for debate. They're not up for debate.
Human rights aren't up for debate.
And the reason that I agreed to be on
the program is that I've been very troubled
by the misinformation about what the law
is actually going to do. And so, I really
grappled with whether or not I wanted
to participate in this discussion.
But I thought it was very important to really
try to dial back the hateful rhetoric
and actually do a very careful
discussion about what the law is
actually designed to achieve and,
ultimately, to promote a more equitable
and just society. So, we've talked about
freedom of expression to use the
Canadian term, but we should also be
talking about other values like equality
and anti-racism, I think. STEVE: Just curious,
Mary, I'm gonna get to in one sec.
curious, though. You've now participated
in 90% of the program. We're just about done.
Do you – Was it a good idea for you to come on?
KYLE: I think that it's an opportunity
to try to work through some of
the legal issues, the social and human rights
and equality issues, and so, I'm happy
to be here. But I recognize that other
people's experiences – they might find,
ultimately, that participating in this
program was a mistake. And time will tell.
STEVE: Mary, you wanted to follow up. MARY: Well, I certainly – sorry –
I certainly want to say that I found
Kyle – I found that what you brought to it
in terms of putting the bill
into perspective actually really helpful,
and probably helpful to a lot of people.
So, I'm glad that Kyle was here.
I think, for me, one of the things that I'm really –
I felt anxious about coming in –
and I'm still puzzling over – why this issue?
Why this issue? So – and I do think – at the risk
of bringing in the United States again,
there does seem to be a similarity
between some of the rhetoric we're
hearing down south right now through
the election and this. It's been –
It feels like it's greatly exaggerated –
sort of what can – what will fallout from this, what will –
And we're sort of – It feels like a bit of
a tempest in a teapot. I don't see
the connections that Jordan is making.
And as a person who identifies as transgender,
it's very, very confusing that this is
somehow up for discussion. STEVE: You saw the
tape at the beginning of the program
of the – I mean he tried to give a speech at
a university campus and was really quite
mercilessly shouted down. MARY: And that would
be one of the places where Jordan and I
would have some common ground in
that there has been a trend,
in some ways, for people to allow
no platforming, and, "This person's views
are objectionable and we don't want them
to come on the campus." STEVE: What do you think of that?
MARY: I think it's probably
best not discussed in the context of
someone's personal identity, right? [chuckles]
So,that's part of my – that's part of what
I'm bothered by by this discussion. So –
STEVE: But if you can't have a discussion about
free speech on a university campus,
then I guess you can't have one,
because that's supposed to be where they happen, isn't it?
MARY: I agree with you. I think that
that is a problem. What I'm trying to say
is that those issues came up around –
issues of someone who was
pro-Israel who wanted to come onto campus –
those things are political.
My identity, my personal identity, my gender
identity is very separate from my
political identity. And so, it's very
strange to have this to be where we're
going to plant the flag and say,
"Enough with this crazy political correctness!" [chuckles]
"You don't get to choose your pronouns!"
It seems trivial to me. JORDAN: I thought it was
an axiom, say, of feminism, for example,
that the personal was political.
And isn't that the –? That's a famous phrase.
The personal is political. STEVE: Okay. But speaking – NICHOLAS: The personal is
political when someone is attacking you
on a basis that is personal and that you
can't change about yourself. That's a –
That is political. And that's when people
sometimes become politicized is when
they realize that no matter what they do
in the world, there will be people who
will continue to attack them on racist grounds,
on gender and sexual violence grounds.
And that's why people start to fight back,
and that's why people object.
But on – JORDAN And your attempts to regulate
my language use and your repeated – NICHOLAS: I don't care about
your language use. I care about the
safety of the people who are being harmed.
JORDAN: I know. People who make your kinds of
arguments are always concerned with
other people's safety. NICHOLAS: I'm concerned with
my own safety.
My – Just so that people are aware,
my physical, emotional, life, and livelihood
is at risk from being here. And that's not true of everyone.
JORDAN: In comparison to mine, say. NICHOLAS: I don't know about
yours, because I don't live your life. JORDAN: Yes you do. You know perfectly well about mine.
You know about the letter. NICHOLAS: I do know that you have tenure and that that's
one of the major ways that you're able
to do this. But I just want people to be
aware that trans-and gender-diverse
communities – and especially people of color –
are being targeted and threatened physically.
So, free speech is a great
idea and equality is a great idea,
but we actually can't have those conversations
when people are not even able to be present.
STEVE: Jordan, let me read this tweet to you,
and I'll get you to respond to
it because I think it's instructive of
the conversation that just took place
between the two of you.
"Can someone please explain
to Jordan B Peterson that there's a
difference between freedom of speech and
freedom from consequence?" Do you agree
there's a difference? JORDAN: Well, certainly
there's a difference. STEVE: And are you
prepared to suffer the consequences that
society may deem you need to suffer
because of your views?
JORDAN: Yes, I'm prepared to do that. So –
STEVE: What does that entail? NICHOLAS: Are you open open to learning?
STEVE: Well, hang on. JORDAN: That's not the question.
STEVE: Hang on. That that wasn't the question. NICHOLAS: That's true.
JORDAN: Well, so what am I willing to do?
Well, I think that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal
is probably obligated,
by their own tangled web, to bring me in
front of it. If they fine me, I won't pay it.
If they put me in jail, I'll go on a hunger strike.
I'm not doing this.
And that's that. I'm not using the words that
other people require me to use –
especially if they're made up by radical
left-wing ideologues.
Now, if our society comes to some sort of
consensus over the next while about how
we'll solve the pronoun problem –
let's call it – and that becomes part of popular parlance,
and it seems to solve the
problem properly without sacrificing the
distinction between singular and plural,
and without requiring me to memorize
an impossible list of an indefinite number of pronouns,
then I would be willing to
reconsider my position. But I'm also
partly opposed to this because it's been
made mandatory and has the whole weight
of the law behind it. It's like this is a
very bad idea. I believe this is a very
bad idea. And I believe that the reason
this has caused so much noise –
tremendous amount of noise – tremendous amount of
attention on YouTube – is because there
are things that are at stake
in this discussion – despite its surface nature –
that strike at the very
heart of our civilization. That's what I believe.
STEVE: Do you have tenure? JORDAN: I do.
STEVE: So, they can't fire you for this. JORDAN: Well, it's
not all that easy to figure out what
people can and can't do. If I'm –
Certainly, they could fire me if I was – let's say –
if the hate-speech allegations,
so to speak, stuck. I mean, the university – Look.
The university's been quite reasonable
about this, especially compared to many universities.
STEVE: Actually – JORDAN: We're going to have a debate.
STEVE: I was just going to say – We've got a minute left and
do want to give it to Jordan JORDAN: Yeah. Okay.
STEVE: Because the university has not said entirely,
"Shut up. We don't want to hear this anymore."
JORDAN: No. But I went and
talked to the dean on Friday. And I sat
down with my family and I thought,
"Okay. What would be the best way for this
to go for everyone – for me and and for my
students and for the university and for society?"
I thought, "Okay. Well, really
obviously, there's an issue here –
several of them – because otherwise, all of this
noise wouldn't have emerged. So we should
actually have a debate about it." STEVE: And that's happening.
JORDAN: Yes. So I went and
talked to the Dean, David Cameron, who is
a very reasonable person and I said,
"Look, well, I think the University of Toronto
should take a leadership position on this.
And there's issues to be discussed here.
STEVE: So who are you debating?
JORDAN: Hah! Well, that remains to be seen.
I haven't seen people flooding out of the woodwork to debate me so far.
STEVE: You have a date, place, and time yet?
JORDAN: Um, we don't. It'll be on the campus.
It'll probably be on a
morning in the next two weeks.
STEVE: Okay. You let me know we'll tweet it out there.
JORDAN: I will let you know. Absolutely. STEVE: Okay. That's our time
I'm afraid, everybody. I do want to thank
everybody for coming in tonight.
And I hope you found it was worth your while.
We certainly found it, I think, a very useful exercise.
NICHOLAS: Can I [inaudible] resources for people? STEVE: Sorry?
NICHOLAS: People who just watched this program may be really
in need of something. STEVE: Sure. You've got a website?
I would really encourage people to go to
transformingjustice.ca. It's a
current research initiative that will
appeal to anyone with any interest in
research and learning. STEVE: Say it again.
BOTH: transformingjustice.ca.
STEVE: We are happy to put that out there.
NICHOLAS: Thank you. STEVE: Theryn Meyer, the trans pundit and
Youtuber in Vancouver; Kyle Kirkup,
the professor of law at the University of Ottawa;
we thank both of you for being outside
our studio but part of our broadcast tonight.
Jordan Peterson of the U of T;
Nick Matte, from the U of T; Mary Rogan,
you can read more about this in her piece,
"Growing Up Trans," in the October issue
of Walrus magazine, on
better bookstore and corner-store stands
everywhere. Thanks so much, everybody.
GUESTS: Thank you. NARRATOR: Help TVO create a better
world through the power of learning.
Visit tvo.org and make a tax-deductible donation today.