Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech

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.