I am really tired of people being so nasty to a person whom has searched for truth and shared what he has discovered and been honest about what he learned. People are offended because what he has to say may not make them feel good about taking the easy path but they shouldn't be mean. People go through times that are human nature is simply not strong enough to handle without help and the possibility of losing the person you love the most in this world is a situation that everyone handles differently. He without sin........ God Bless the Peterson family and I pray the hardest times are behind them. Love...a fellow human being
It is no secret that while social media can be a wonderful world of learning and connection, it can equally be an ignorant cesspool that serves as a window into the darker corners of human nature.
Recently, Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson—author of the international bestseller 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos—along with his daughter, decided to bravely pre-empt a foreshadowed character assassination by disclosing on social media that he had sought treatment for clonazepam dependence at a rehabilitation center.
Peterson had been prescribed clonazepam—a type of anti-anxiety medication of the benzodiazepine class—to help manage the stressors associated with the recent devastating news of his wife’s cancer diagnosis.
When it comes to the addiction and mental health treatment world, benzodiazepines can be thought of as wolves in sheep’s clothing, with the exception of their beneficial use in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal. If benzodiazepines are used repeatedly and temporarily to avoid or cope with uncomfortable emotions, thoughts, and memories, their use could lead to the development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms, such as anxiety.
They are not first-line treatments for anxiety disorders, and clinical guidelines recommend that their use be restricted to the short term, due to the high potential for both dependency and addiction, as well as other side effects, including severe withdrawal symptoms, sedation, cognitive impairment, and the potential for death.
Full disclosure: I am a clinical psychologist who specializes in addiction, and I bear witness on a regular basis to the literal hell that is benzodiazepine dependence and the effects of addiction-related stigma. Also, Peterson was my undergraduate research supervisor at the University of Toronto approximately 15 years ago, and we have maintained some contact since that time. It is precisely for these reasons that I have decided to shine a light on the stigma directed towards him; it is often in those with whom we have a personal connection that the effects of stigma are particularly salient.

A cursory glance at comment sections or Twitter posts related to Peterson’s disclosure quickly reveals beliefs centering on ideas about his moral failing, weakness, and inability to follow his own advice due to seeking treatment.
It might be argued that much of the negative commentary about Peterson is driven by a sense of karmic justice among those who disagree with his positions and politics. Agreed. And it is exactly this kind of moral and emotional reasoning that unearths lazy, sloppy, stigmatizing beliefs.
Look, I get it. Peterson has more than ruffled a few feathers during the past few years. And I own my personal bias as a Peterson supporter, though I steadfastly believe that he has had a net positive effect on the world.
But irrespective of your views on Peterson, it is a gross disservice to everyone to perpetuate harmful myths about people who seek mental health and addiction-related treatment. The fact that the hostility directed towards Peterson has manifested as this type of stigma is a clear indictment against our cultural milieu.
The other tiresome layer to this topic is the need for continued advocacy to dispel the myth that mental health professionals who seek treatment are incapable of imparting clinical wisdom. More generally, health care providers are not gods; they are human, and they go through the same life tragedies that you do. Judging anyone’s response to a life tragedy, no matter who they are, and especially without context, is a terribly naïve and self-righteous stance that reflects an ill-formed understanding of human nature.
Peterson is no less susceptible to the ravages of life than the rest of us. Yes, he is equipped with knowledge about how to best respond, which is exactly what he did by seeking treatment. And in doing so, Peterson and his family are embodying the very strength that they have helped to inspire in so many others.
Thanks Dr J. Pea for standing up for Jordan Peterson
Peterson is a charlatan
All the hate comes from the fact that Peterson is himself a charlatan using young, vulnerable people for his enrichment. He got rich off young men online suffering and turned it into millions. You have to be a special kind of gullible to believe his platitudes. He should be stigmatised for his duplicity, not his seeking help. Doesn’t change the fact that he is a mountebank of the most ridiculous caliber.
A confusing narrative
@Mabaker
Out of curiosity, what evidence do you have he is a charlatan? He does hold some beliefs I do find a little out there, but that really isn't used for any kind of advocacy for anything. As for platitudes, isn't it the case that he isn't using them hence the hysteria. Even if he does use some, the fact that they are so controversial means they seem to either have been forgotten or are out of public discourse. As for the "using young men suffering online" for anything. Those who have at least considered what he says on his book usually have said how much it has helped them. The people that seem to criticize him either are too lazy to understand the narrative or just like to be smart assed. As for duplicity, there is absolutely no evidence of that. You're comparing him to a Deepak Chopra which is just not realistic. One was out for the money from the start and says things he knows himself not to be true (Chopra), the other Peterson was pushed into the limelight not by his own intentions. His main messages , which are particularly important in today's culture of not being responsible for anything, it's the (government's/corporations'/men's...fault) Never your own, is to take responsibility for that which you can control. It's the importance of owning what you are responsible for and the value it brings you. Why you think there is I'll intent behind this comes off to me as strange. I can understand you disagreeing with him, but with so much malicious intent on your words you kind of come across as... Perhaps... A jealous asshole?
J. Peterson
Your comment said everything I wanted to say, but better.
I have often wished Jordan would make himself more clear to the reactionary bandwagoners when it comes to the pronoun usage issue.
To be more clear in letting them know that he does not dislike them at all; is in no way against transitioning people & give more precise explanation of the bigger picture he is trying to put forth.
Just because most of us got it the first time doesn't mean that there are tons who DON'T WANT to understand the broader meaning.
Sometimes things DO need reiteration.
Funny that these are the same people who call him hateful.
I don't think he's the second coming by any means, but the straightforward message of personal responsibility is one that no one in their right mind could argue with.
The proof is in the pudding w/ the number of people, not just "young men" that have found what he offers to be helpful in getting themselves on track.
If he were a new age charlatan spouting wishful thinking & woo
pseudoscience that would be one thing, but that is far from the practical, common-sense advice he offers.
He decided to ride the tidal wave when it presented itself because he knew it was an opportunity that would benefit himself & others & that is something any of us w/ guts & a need to make a living would do.
It just might be time though to rest, reconnect with his family, stop touring w/ the same fervor & find another meaningful way of
using his aptitudes out there in the world.
Peterson is a godsend
How long have you been waiting to use mountebank in a sentence? [Insert sarcastic slow clap here]
He's the best bet young vulnerable people have in this world today where young vulnerable people across the West are taught to be victims and throw temper tantrums when they hear something they disagree with. That's working out well.
The message of personal responsibility being delivered to young people (men in particular) could not be more timely.
He's only human, he talks about that a lot and this proves it. This changes nothing except making miserable people such as yourself happy.
Peterson
I am no longer young. I am a qualified medical professional with interests in psycholinguistics and drug addiction.
I learned more from Peterson than from just about anyone since Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung.
Defending Dr. Peterson
I agree wholeheartedly that people are being so cruel and nasty for Dr.Peterson for seeking treatment. Perhaps, a lot of these people who are so offended are the people who imaginary think that human being can be non - binary, gender fluid and that 72 genders exist. This is anti -science nonsense! People are male or female with only a tiny tiny minority of the world's population being intersex, like really tiny as in 0.03%.
You Are Mistaken
Gender is a multifaceted concept that overlaps multiple fields of study and life domains.
Splitting it into categories (2, or 72) is not about identifying objective empirical phenomenon, but about drawing useful distinctions in a given conversation.
It's a spectrum. Picture a box of crayons. You have 8 colors. That's sufficient for first grade art class. Now, picture a professional artist's pallette. There can be hundreds of different colors. You can group those into 8 categories, but if an artist needs a burnt sienna rather than a raw umber, they need to have more categories than just "brown."
Fair enough
@Culturally Competent Clinician
There's no evidence whatsoever that there is a spectrum of genders across humans. We're not platypuses. If you choose the route of saying sex and gender are different then I will concur with your "useful distinctions" premise. There is no utility at all in this "spectrum" as it only serves to cause ambiguity for many practical situations but gives nothing back in return except heightened sensitivity and belligerent attitudes for what is perceived as a slight against the person. Given that this is a psychology site's comment section, do we still consider it a condition? I mean it's right there in the DSM V, from disorder to dysphoria, a euphemism of course - which is another casualty of this insanity: being able to speak. There are a lot of psychologists here I assume, I don't know... Is Peterson wrong about those suffering from such conditions where they decide they are more like the opposite gender, transition, but then the rate of suicide is about exactly the same? Most studies you can look up do show that to be true. So when something isn't indicated to solve a disorder, doesn't that mean it's not medically valid? Doesn't that completely neuter any argument here?
"You are Mistaken"
Dear Culturally competent,
Just a thought that you might want to define what you mean by "gender" here and explain that you are using an esoteric definition of gender. Otherwise you risk the issue of equivocation where people misunderstand what definition of gender you are using.
When most people refer to "gender" they mean biological sex. Which in colloquial language we usually refer to as binary but if we want to be technical, is better described as bimodal. It is bimodal because if you look at sexual characteristics such as genitals, chromosomes, hormones etc. most people fall very closely within what is typically called male or female and appears mostly binary. However, it is actually bimodal because there is a spectrum of gender between those points.
It appears you are using the term "gender" more to refer to the idea of "gender roles." This esoteric definition is one often
used in post-modern or critical theory academic circles. In that sense gender is infinite because there are an unlimited potential number of gender roles. In this sense, "gender" refers more to culture and style than anything else. For example this idea of gender is closely related to things like people defining themselves as "goth" or "emo." This might be thought of as there are an infinite number of subcultures that choose to represent their gender role differently.
It is important to note that when you use this definition of gender you are likely to be misunderstood because most people are speaking about the bimodal (or binary) definition of gender instead of the definition of gender that applies to cultural norms of gendered behavior.
It is important in conversations relating to gender, that we distinguish which definition we are using to avoid equivocating. Many debates about these issues are simply matters of semantics where people are using different definitions. Now, when it comes to pronoun choices the issue is of course more complicated because it implicates a societal choice on how we use pronouns. Do we decide that pronouns refer to the bimodal definition of gender (and thus from a semantic sense it makes sense to have two sets of pronouns which was the traditional way this term was used) or do they refer to the "gender role" definition of gender (in which case it makes sense to have an infinite number of pronouns which is the new and esoteric definition). And of course, the option we choose will be decided over time as our language adopts to one path or the other. Do we stay with the traditional naming convention which has the practical benefit of being simpler or do we choose the infinite variation which has the benefit of recognizing the way someone feels about their gender? Right now we are simply in the difficult transition time where people are debating this language choice.
You Make Some Assumptions
I think I was pretty clear how I was using it, but you seem to get the distinction between biological sex (e.g., chromosomes and physical sexual characteristics) and gender (a social concept often, but not exclusively linked to biological sex, which varies in given cultures, at different times, and incorporates experience and behaviors). I'd say your conflation of "gender" with "gender roles" is a little over-reductive, but broadly we seem to be on a similar page.
I have to take issue with your assertion that pronouns have traditionally been linked to biological sex, and not to gender.
As to the traditional point, there are many cultures which recognized more than two genders throughout history (e.g., "two-spirits"), and even in cultures that don't have a well-established concept of more than two genders, gender neutral pronouns have been present and commonly used for centuries (e.g., there are references in the Bible in which the singular "they/their/them" is used as a pronoun).
As to the assertion that gender pronouns are linked in some way to biological gender, I'm reminded of arguments we hear against unisex bathrooms. Countless people who have shared bathrooms in their homes can't seem to fathom the idea that people with different sex organs can use the same bathroom equipment. There's an association of genitals with gender, and then gender with segregated bathrooms, but that doesn't mean people with different genitalia require gender segregated bathrooms as a result of their genitalia.
I don't know if it's necessarily going to be helpful, but I've found it useful to consider how often my interactions with others, even in contexts informed by gender, require some conceptualization by those involved of the various sex organs in the room.
Some clarification please
"gender neutral pronouns have been present and commonly used for centuries (e.g., there are references in the Bible in which the singular "they/their/them" is used as a pronoun)"
Can this be cited? My reason for commenting is that while I have no interest in the binary vs non-binary conversation, I think there is a misapplication of context for this version of they/them/their pronouns, and I choose to not use these pronouns in the context of a specified individual, all the while wanting to keep an open mind.
No Problem
I can't post links in this system, but search "they singular pronoun Bible" or "they singular pronoun oed" (for a more general history.
Careful with equivocation
Culturally Competent,
You are confusing yourself now by equivocating. Let me try to help clear up this issue. Yes, other cultures have recognized that there are more than two "gender roles." And obviously, gender roles differ depending on the culture. However, in our society we have traditionally used pronouns in reference to biologically male vs. female (again I use binary instead of bimodal simply for ease of conversation).
The question is not, can we think of examples of ways people have historically performed more than 2 genders (e.g., two spirit). The question is a solely a semantic one. What do most people mean when they say "he" or "she."
I would argue the common understanding is pronouns refer to biological sex. That is why people can say: "he" is "feminine." In that context "he" refers to biological sex while "feminine" refers to performative gender role. Traditionally in the US, we did not refer to feminine biological men as she. Of course language is blurry and there is overlap in usage, but primarily, pronouns are used to refer to biological sex.
My point being, when someone says "there are 2 genders" and someone else says "no, there are 72 genders" they are equivocating. The reason they get push back is because of this equivocation. There are not in fact 72 biological genders, there are 2. But in a sense, both sides of the debate are in fact 100% correct. There are 72 (or infinite) performative gender roles and there are 2(ish) biological genders. The issue is which of these definitions do our pronouns attach to. And as I said before, traditionally they attach to biological sex not performative gender. As I also said before, we are in a time of change and maybe we will switch to having pronouns refer to performative gender. But it is important to remember that this is merely a semantic debate on how we want to use language. It really comes down to whether we want to allow individuals to choose their pronouns or if we want to maintain our established linguistic rules for determining pronouns. There are benefits and drawbacks to both choices.
Ok as to your bathroom example. First, I have never heard anyone argue that they can't understand how someone of the opposite biological sex can use the same bathroom. I think that's a straw man argument. Second, the bathroom issue has nothing to do with pronoun choice. U.S. culture has traditionally separated bathrooms based on biological sex. In the past pronouns referred to biological sex so it was common that pronoun choice would equate to which bathroom was used. Now there is confusion as to whether pronouns refer to biological sex or performative gender role. But, lets say we do as a society change our language so that pronouns refer to performative gender role. In that case, it doesn't resolve the bathroom issue because it is a totally separate question as to whether we should segregate bathrooms based on biological sex or performative gender. Which, just to make sure I a being clear, is also a completely separate issue of which bathroom a person who is trans can choose to use. Of course it is obvious it does not have to be segregated the way people do in the US. Many other cultures don't segregate bathrooms this way. But segregating bathrooms on biological gender is a different question than whether our pronouns refer to biological gender or performative gender.
Gender roles
Gender roles are assigned to sex, not the other way around. If gender roles are a social construct (which they are), why is it necessary to alter ones sexual organs in order to embrace whatever gender role one prefers to assume? It seems that making up 72 different social constructs makes things much more complicated! Why not simply eliminate gender role stereotypes entirely and let people act and dress however they please, regardless of the particulars of their sexual organs?
People Aren't Crayons
(1) People are not crayons. (2) A person's gender is not equivalent to the color of a crayon. (3) If we were to assume that a person's gender was somehow equivalent in some way to the color of a crayon, who are the artists using the genders, and what sorts of things can/do they paint with them? How? On what canvas? How are these pieces of art critiqued? Who decides which genders of art are better? By what standard? If genders are as fluid as colors, how fluid than is one's perspective on genders? If every color is as valid as every other, and every gender as valid as every other, than surely something as amorphous as opinions on race, gender, sex, and so on is at least as fluid and so each opinion on such a matter is as valid as every other. Nazism (and the like) are then no less valid ideologies than intersectionality (certainly not very different) and the like.
Peterson
I'm all for nuance & complexity, but that does not make us crayons.
There are real people out there with gender identification issues they've felt deeply & painfully since being toddlers & then there is a trend of trying to use the issue to give oneself the instant identitity they're lacking.
There is also the bratty power issue of it, the faux underdog bit & the plain old wanting something to rant & rave about while feeling the solidarity that ideological groups offer.
I mean, let's be HONEST with ourselves eh?
You know that element is out there.
There are transgendered people who think the whole thing is ridiculous & whom also see very clearly that it trivializes their experiences.
Tough Topic
We don’t know his pain.We can’t know what another person feels. Sickness in someone we care about is difficult. Extreme sickness is extremely emotionally painful. Sad.
Emotional pain
It is not a sickness to grieve for your wife's cancer diagnosis and to feel anxious and upset about what the future might hold. It is the very fact of viewing these emotions as "sickness" that created this problem in the first place. If his emotional experiences were normalized and he was encouraged to explore this experience with others who have experienced similar things or who understand the pain and confusion involved, he would have worked through these things without being given drugs and without the organ damage and other unnecessary iatrogenic problems he has now got to deal with.
Reply
I am very pleased to hear that Dr Peterson is recovering and that his wife is also recovering from her illness.
I do hope that both will recover and gain enough strength to
resume their lecture tours because they are helping so many
people to understand life , meaning and themselves and creating hope for the future.
Best wishes ! Trevor
Jordan Peterson seeking treatment
When I encounter people who try to imply that what Jordan Peterson has to say is without value based on supposed hypocrisy I ask them this question. "If you had a life threatening cardiac problem and the best surgeon in that field was overweight and smoked, would you refuse to let him treat you ? What if you had some mysterious illness that was going to take your life and you had access to a real life Dr. House (as in the TV show "House") would you reject his expertise because he has a drug addiction (Vicodin, the pain killer drug) and many other severe problems.? Just because someone isn't perfect is a ridiculous reason to reject the tremendous gifts that person may have to give to the world. Jordan Peterson's ideas stand alone. Their validity is not determined by someone's evaluation of his personal life anymore than the validity of Albert Einstein's theories are determined by someone's personal opinion of his personal life.
This Seems Incomplete
I don't disagree with the main points of this argument, but I feel compelled to comment about the (in my opinion) insufficient consideration of Peterson's actions and the invalidating narrative they present trans individuals, particularly nonbinary trans individuals.
"Ruffled a few feathers" fails to convey the extent to which Peterson prioritized his discomfort with being asked to not deliberately misgender students in his class, over the ethical responsibility he has to not perpetuate false and harmful assumptions about vulnerable and marginalized communities.
The suicide rate, as well as the murder rate for LGBTQ+ individuals is far too high to irresponsibly bolster right-wing media figures' misrepresentation of trans people as being "scientifically invalid" and inherently threatening to society.
Again, I agree, his rhetoric and actions should not be used to perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Substance Use Disorders, but it should also be noted that he's not the target of antipathy due solely to a disagreement about personal political beliefs.
As someone who works in the treatment of Substance Use Disorders, this author has nuanced insight into the topic and appreciates how misconceptions and a misguided sense of righteous indignation can have a detrimental effect on vulnerable individuals. I would like to ask the author to consider whether the same might be true for trans individuals in the context of Peterson's actions, media appearances, and rhetoric.
This seems incomplete too
Good morning,
While I sincerely appreciate the way you (Culturally Appropriate Counselor) approach your post, it is respectful of the author’s point while disagreeable, it too seems a little incomplete. Allow me to elaborate...
I say this because in all the interviews I’ve ever seen, Jordan consistently mentions that he is almost always cooperative with the subjective (not scientifically validated) desires of a trans person as it relates to their preferred pronouns. I think that someone who disagrees with someone while respecting them enough to identify them by their preferred gender, is worthy of higher praise, not mischaracterization.
In fact, I find this to be a common thread in the anti-Peterson tapestry. People seem to think that simply because he fought an actual law that put real restrictions on speech, that he is a bigot. I know many men and women who respect gay marriage and who have supported the state of Israel for a long time, but have been called Jew hating, bigoted, white supremacists simply because they enjoy the intellectual challenges and positive message that Jordan champions. Kind of like Hillary Clinton saying Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset while citing no evidence (meanwhile even the super liberal news site Vox reported this as a silly statement on Hillary’s part)
His GQ interview and interview with Cathy Newman are clear examples of people misrepresenting and mischaracterizing him, projecting negative images and ideas onto him for presenting challenges and alternatives to their own narratives. Sometimes I think many people from the left or right would rather be feared and complied with than heard.
Similarly, Peterson is accurate in his “scientifically invalid” comments. While he respects the individual enough to call them by their preferred pronouns in his classroom; demanding someone be held accountable by law for not calling someone by the pronoun they prefer, while also presenting no concrete scientific evidence for this view, is in fact, not scientifically validated, as he has stated. It is one thing to ask someone to call you something out of respect and sensitivity, most people comply, but it is a completely different thing to compel someone through law to do it, by demanding their speech adhere to your own subjective standards.
For further reading: Scientific evidence for biological components in the development of gender identity based on twin studies. Rosenthal (2016) - American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
Also, unrelated to that specific post but still very relevant to this thread... he definitely hands out generic self help advice because those are things that have worked for him and others, conservative AND liberal. He doesn’t malign Jews, he supports them. I would recommend watching more than the suggested 5 minutes of his videos, I’ve watched tens of hours and listen to his podcast, and while I don’t agree with all of his viewpoints, he certainly is not a purveyor of snake oil, though perhaps he might benefit from some essential oils. :)
Lastly. I agree with the true intent of the article. I have already witnessed people castigating him because “the guy trying to help others” ended up addicted to benzos and in rehab. I think that no matter how you feel about him or his philosophies, there should only be support for someone who recognizes a problem and addresses it. He should also be held accountable so that he is healthier before he counsels others, but to chastise him for seeking help is allowing your ideology to overcome your compassion, which happens far too often these days. No matter how you feel about Peterson, transgender people, or other things, let us try to remember the words of one of the most compassionate people this world has known...
“We must learn to live together as brothers or we will perish together as fools.” ~ MLK
“Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” ~ MLK
Thoughts
I appreciate you saying that. There's a lot here, so if I don't respond to something you feel is particularly important, please let me know.
Firstly, I hear what you're saying about Peterson's personal interactions with trans individuals, and I'll take him at his word that he does honor people's pronouns and treats them with respect to their face.
That said, I do believe he has a more controversial history of arguments than you've presented here. I can't link to them (because this comment system won't let me), but if you search for "Peterson non-binary pronouns," you'll see he (at least at one time) refused to use any pronouns other than "he" or "she", though he did agree to use either depending on an individual's request. The arguments I've heard against his statements involves him not accepting non-binary pronouns.
Perhaps more importantly though, his representation of Bill C-16 has been misleading. The legislation does not criminalize misgendering anyone, nor does it compel any speech. It only extends protections already afforded to other protected classes to trans individuals. There is a well-established standard that requires deliberate and repeated misgendering, of a person over whom an individual holds some authority and official relationship, to the extent that it is deemed harrassment for it to be applicable. Moreover, no speech is compelled, as there is nothing stopping Peterson from using a student's name, addressing them directly (e.g., "you"), or using a neutral term (e.g., "that person"). If he felt uncomfortable with a given pronoun (e.g., Xi), he would not have to use it.
The reason this is important is that the harm Peterson has done involves misrepresenting this law and (unwittingly or otherwise) bolstering arguments that non-binary trans people are not valid, that they're incorrect about their own gender, or that asking him to respect that on principle, is unjust. It's great that he is respectful in person, but in prioritizing his right to "not be compelled to be respectful" (or whatever), while publicly championing this issue, he very much did present the law as being threatening to his rights and the well-being of society.
We disagree on the scientific legitimacy of denying individuals' gender identity. Gender is a complicated issue that extends beyond genetics.
More importantly though is that we can not conflate "philosophical concepts used by scientists to conceptualize empirical facts" with "empirically confirmable facts." Science doesn't establish the validity of gender as a concept, just that empirical aspects of given concepts seem to correlate with other empirical phenomenon.
We disagree as well on his advice (vis-a-vis it being snake-oil) to some extent. I do think he has some useful advice that addresses genuine issues, and to the extent it has helped people, I am not going to criticize it. However, there are some less defensible ideas he's presented, as if they are equally valid to evidence-based practice, and I have not been at all impressed by his discussion tactics of making an observation which implies a specific critique, but then refuses to acknowledge that.
For instance (to paraphrase) "women wear makeup to be sexually desirable, but men are expected not to sexualize them in the workplace, and as a result, things aren't going as well as they could." That's a pretty loaded argument, and if I made it, I would understand if your next question was "so what are you suggesting we do, ban makeup?" I would not respond with "you're putting words in my mouth."
As an aside, if you're interested in essential oils, there's a podcast called Sawbones which recently did an episode on them, from a medical perspective. It's worth a listen.
As for MLK, I'm brought back to the "white moderate" passage from his Letter From a Birmingham Jail. Good intentions are great, but if they're functioning on a systemic level in a way that denies justice to others, that's not love.
Consider applying the principal of charity to Jordan Peterson
Dear Culturally Complete,
I appreciate your thoughtful responses here. I'm trying to find a way to frame this issue without being rude, and I may fail so my apologies ahead of time if this comes off poorly. There has been a false narrative created around Jordan Peterson by many news outlets that he is transphobic and alt right, alt light, etc. This false narrative has been perpetuated repeatedly and thus has become one of the dominant narratives about Jordan Peterson. The narrative has become self perpetuating as the misleading articles about him create a bias against Jordan Peterson in those who read those articles. Those same readers see his out of context quotes which they interpret through that bias and they never do further research to confirm whether he was accurately quoted. I suspect this is also why you see comment threads about him full of his supporters jumping in to support him. They have a better understanding of his views because they have seen his quotes in the greater context of his full body of work and thus want to help others understand how reporting about him has been misleading (I find myself among that group).
I say this because I suspect (though I may be wrong) that you are one of those people who has been biased against him by misleading reporting. There is no fault in this. In fact it is to be expected as none of us have the time to research every issue. I write to you now because I hope to correct some of your misunderstandings of Jordan Peterson and hope to convince you that the media portrayal of him greatly misrepresents his actual views and what he has said.
For example you raise the issue of Jordan Peterson's comments on makeup in the workplace. Your discussion of that demonstrates that you are not familiar at all with his discussion. If you were, you would not have said: "That's a pretty loaded argument, and if I made it, I would understand if your next question was 'so what are you suggesting we do, ban makeup?'." I suggest you watch the entire vice interview that this quote comes from (not the edited one) to get a better picture of what he was saying. In fact, his point is actually quite similar to the one you are making.
My analysis of the interview was that Jordan Peterson was using the Socratic method to teach the interviewer to think critically. They were generally discussing the idea of the acceptability of sexual displays in the workplace. Jordan Peterson lead with questions examining whether makeup is sexual in nature and whether it should be allowed in the workplace. I assume he started with the makeup example because most of us would agree that makeup is something that should be allowed in the workplace (I also teach and I often use this same method of starting with an acceptable hypothetical when using the Socratic method). After encouraging the interviewer to engage in ideas around whether makeup is sexual in nature by asking him questions, Jordan Peterson pulls the thought to a different level and asks the interviewer "what about a Negligee, is that acceptable in the workplace" (Paraphrased). His overall point being that we do not have a clear line of what sort of sexual behavior is acceptable in the workplace and the implication is that the line likely lies somewhere between those two extreme points. So when people quote Jordan Peterson as saying makeup is not acceptable in the workplace, they have completely misrepresented him. In fact, he was very clearly using that as an example of acceptable behavior when compared to negligees which most would agree is not acceptable. He then stated that we still need to have a discussion about where we draw the line for sexual displays in the workplace. This was in the broader context of whether someone who intentionally makes a sexual display in the workplace is hypocritical when the display has the expected result of creating sexual desire. He left unsaid, but the implication that we not only should criticize people for sexual harassment, but we also ought to encourage people to minimize elaborate sexual displays because those displays sexualize the workplace and increase the probability of sexual harassment (though this does not justify it).
Of course all of that is my analysis of his actions which could be completely off base. But, I suggest that you actually review his statements in context if you are going to criticize. I also suggest you use the principal of charitable interpretation instead of approaching his work with a bias created by the reporting done on him.
There is more context around your other complaints of him as well. He clarified his position on refusing to use chosen pronouns, when he stated that he would only refuse to use pronouns if he believed someone was doing so for a manipulative purpose. He was rightfully criticized for this during a speech when Glen Loury asked him how he would know someone was being manipulative to which Jordan Peterson gave a particularly unconvincing answer. As to the issue of bill C16, Peterson stated on numerous occasions that his complaint was that it did require the use of certain pronouns, that if he didn't use them he could be fined, and if he refused to pay the fine he could be put in jail. This was all correct and this was a restriction on speech by the government.
Sorry for the long post, but I'm hoping to convince you to look beyond the headlines and try to read Jordan Peterson in context. It is easy to "other" people who appear to be outside our group of people and then assume the worst and apply a critical lens to all of their behavior that we would not apply to people in our in group. I believe this is to a large degree what has happened with Jordan Peterson. He, like many people, has faults; however, if he had not been "othered" by the media, most of us would ignore those faults as we would for people in our social group.
Something to Consider
No need to worry about being rude. I can tell you're coming at this from a genuine place.
If I can sum up where this conversation has gone, you're saying there is a context in which Peterson's comments are valid, and failing to view them in that context changes the meaning and makes them seem invalid (I hope that's fair).
I take your point, but I would ask you to consider whether the same might be true as it relates to your understanding of the criticism of him. Is it possible that rather than missing the context, they're responding to his words from a perspective that includes additional context?
Just to stick with the make-up example, there are plenty of ways in which women might relate to make-up, their employability, their rights being violated, navigating how and when to assert themselves, expectations that they are to manage the social and emotional dynamics of a given situation, etc. (that's one example, and I'm barely scratching the surface). If you're in a position to have to deal with that directly, then hearing Peterson casually discussing the idea of sexual attraction in the workplace, making broad claims (e.g., the purpose of make-up is to replicate the appearance of sexual arrousal), and asking questions that contain assumptions and implications about women in the workplace (even if his intent is to address a specific, unrelated point), it's understandable to have critiques, about the points he's making or the way he's making them.
I don't think you're wrong to say Peterson's words aren't always covered in ways that reflect his intentions, but I also don't think it's fair to dismiss criticism as having missed the point.
doubling down
Thanks for trying to summarize. That is not what I was saying. Are you familiar with the concept of "quote mining"? It is the idea of taking a quote out of context in a way that changes the meaning of a quote from that which was intended. I may be incorrect, but I feel like you are playing a goal post change to avoid admitting that your original interpretation of what he said was incorrect.
Now of course, none of us can know the intent of another person. So there is no 100% correct interpretation of a quote. However, it is arguable that some interpretations are better than others. Your phrasing previously indicated that you likely did not understand the original context of Dr. Peterson's quote. Which I explained was understandable as he has been often taken out of context.
As to your example, there are many ways in which women may relate to makeup. That is correct. It is also correct to assert that makeup has a sexual component as he did. Your statements thus are consistent with what Dr. Peterson was saying. So you don't have a disagreement there.
I also want to demonstrate a thought experiment here. I could argue that your second point runs close to arguing a sexist stereotype, that women are not capable of rationally listening to Dr. Peterson's argument because they are being too emotional and misinterpreting it. Another way of referring to this is the "bigotry of low expectations." I don't think you intended that point. But I could chose to interpret your discussion that way and make an argument that you are being sexist toward women by not believing they have the ability to look past their experiences and understand Jordan Peterson in the way he meant to be understood. I think that would be a very unfair interpretation of what you said, but I could make that argument. The point I am getting at, is that I think that is what you were doing with Dr. Peterson (I recognize my assumption here). As I stated before, if you put his quote in context and analyze it from the principal of charity (that we should assume the best intentions and strongest argument from a speaker) then his statement becomes far less offensive and actually a thought provoking conversation.
Communication is a balance between the speaker and the listener both have to be on the same page to communicate effectively. My main point in this discussion is that we should seek to understand someone as they intend to be understood. And, if you look at a large amount of the reporting on Dr. Peterson, you will find that it takes the opposite approach and tries to smear him by taking him out of context and assuming the worst intentions in him.
More Thoughts
I'll be honest, your comment feels somewhat uncharitable.
I made a genuine attempt to summarize a lengthy comment, and I tried to respond thoughtfully to the points that were proposed.
I didn't argue about the Peterson quote, because it didn't seem like the most relevant aspect of the conversation, but if you want to know the truth, I'm very familiar with his writing, and I disagree with the commentor's interpretation of his statement.
You missed the point of my comment. I'm suggesting Peterson's intention is not the only relevant way to understand the meaning of his statement. Even if we could know his intentions with 100% certainty, his perspective is still limited, and other people may have experience and knowledge which gives them insight into relevant aspects of the discussion Peterson didn't acknowledge.
There's a literary theory called "death of the author." Basically, the point is that a piece of writing can be meaningful in ways that ignore the author's intent. For instance, Disney's Dumbo referrenced racist stereotypes in their portrayal of the crows (one is named Jim Crow). The writer's intention was not to be racist, and in the context of the time, that was considered acceptable entertainment, but that doesn't mean it's invalid to look at the work and its cultural context and conclude there was something racist about those crows.
In response to your experiment, let's say I did in fact put forward something sexist in that example, without intending to. Let's say I said what you implied would be sexist (e.g., "women are too emotional to handle Peterson's arguments"). If you were to say to me that there's a sexist aspect to that statement, and I said, "you misunderstood, I didn't mean it in a sexist way and I was actually making a different point, which you would know if you took my words in context," does that mean you're incorrect to point out the sexist statement was sexist? If I dismiss your criticism, because I don't think you appreciate the context of my argument, but I fail to recognize the context your criticism is being made in (i.e., women being too emotional is a sexist stereotype), is it not fair for you to point that out?
If I prioritize my intent over other people's understanding, and accuse people who make valid criticisms, informed by information I do not have, of failing to appreciate the context I view my words in, does that make their criticism somehow invalid?
I'll agree that we should strive to understand people in the context of their intentions, but I'll also say that this isn't the only relevant aspect of analyzing any given argument. Moreover, I think people defending Peterson from "out of context" criticisms could do well to follow their own advice and recognize that his critics can be aware of contexts in which Peterson is making his claims, and that the disagreement is in fact a disagreement, rather than a misunderstanding.
This Seems Inaccurate
I believe you have misunderstood some of Peterson's arguments in the past. He has acknowledged that he would indeed refer to a trans individual by their preferred pronouns and would not dead-name them, simply as a sign of respect and courtesy. The part that's getting misconstrued is he also said the government should not make pronouns into mandatory/compelled speech because being respectful or polite is never mandatory, and allowing this to be mandated would open the doorway for even more government abuse than we are seeing today.
Thoughts
I responded to another comment with a longer explanation, so feel free to read that, but I want to address these thoughts directly, if less extensively.
Peterson has made resonable statements about his personal interactions with trans individuals, and that's great. However, that doesn't negate the effects of his public statements, including those in which he claimed he would not use any pronouns other than "he" or "she." I don't know if he's amended that, but at least for a time, he was refusing to use non-binary pronouns.
As to the law, it does not compel speech, nor does it compel respect. It simply added trans people to legislation covering other protected classes. Nobody will be fined for accidentally misgendering someone, or even for refusing to use their preferred pronoun. It only applies to repeated, deliberate misgendering that is deemed to constitute harrassment, and only in instances in which an official relationship exists.
Peterson would be free to not use any pronouns (e.g., "that person"), to refer to people by name, to address them directly, and any number of other options, aside from repeatedly knowingly using the wrong pronoun in a way that is deemed to be harrassment.
I understand that Peterson was motivated by his belief that this law would do harm, but in doing so, without acknowledging the actual facts, he did real damage to trans people.
Dear "Culturally Competent
Dear "Culturally Competent Clinician",
Your post strikes me as odd. Its verbosity does a poor job of hiding the fact that there is no discernible point to it beyond (i) the claim that Professor Peterson is a "right wing media figure", untruthfully implying that his views can be considered "right wing" as well, and (ii) the implicit, objectively incorrect claim that Professor Peterson's body of work supports a stance pursuant to which transsexual individuals themselves are threatening to society. It seems rather obvious to me that using vaguely accusatory phrases like "invalidating narrative" and terms like "vulnerable" and "marginalized" without a concise point to make serves a simple purpose: to take a moral stance against a person you do not agree with even though you know he is not wrong.
Dear Ivo
You misunderstood, or I was unclear (if so, I apologise). I didn't mean to accuse Peterson of being a right-wing media figure (though, an argument can be made) as if that in itself was damning. I'm criticizing the role he plays in validating their narrative that trans people (particularly nonbinary trans people) are invalid and threatening to the structure of society. As an academic, his comments carry weight and imply an expertise that is not always applicable, nor do his opinions always reflect best practices, ethical considerations, nor accepted conceptualizations of gender. Whether or not Peterson himself has claimed transgender individuals threaten the structure of society, he has appeared on the shows of those who do, he has validated their arguments, and he has failed to dissuade them of those beliefs.
I don't understand why you believe those terms to be "vaguely accusatory." I meant them specifically, and they correspond to accepted psychological phenomenon.
Also, just to practice what I preach, the term "transexual" is no longer considered to be a preferred term, and in this is case, it is explicitly not the concept being discussed. Transgender is not synonymous with transexual, as there are key conceptual distinctions.
Jordan Peterson
Look, all opinions, especially lengthy detailed statements, are never complete - imperfect.
Given the state of society, Jordan Peterson is a great proponent of foundation, elemental reason. Believe it or not, human beings are a structured organism - we have limits. Look around, we are not progressing. We are advancing technology. There is a distinction to be understood.
Jordan Petetson suffers depression, historically. That is factual. He suffers, he manages. He contributes a most valuable service which required an enormous amount of work and sacrifice. This, without complaint.
Given his work load, urgency of his work - he may have misjudged his circumstance. However, he is nothing but noble in the action of his profession and public service availability to the masses.
In my case: the politics of my country is a disgraceful mess on all sides, my Church (Catholic) is suffering malfeasant Prelates including the Pope; all based on deceit by the significant players.
Jordan Peterson is a light in a very dark time.
Culturally Competent Clinician
What percentage of the world population does this rainbow group represent? 1%
Shrug
No idea, but I don't understand what point you're making.
There aren't many of them, so they don't matter?
response
my point is we should enable a mental health condition and validate it. There is no such thing as non - binary, unless you want to explain what the hell non - binary is and why are there 72 genders on Facebook, and why did Chelsea Clinton say, " absolutely a man with a penis and beard can be a woman, there's so much we don't understand about self - identification".
Non-Binary v Binary Models
Binary refers to a model of categorizing things that involves separating them into two groups based on some shared attribute among group members that is exclusive to each group.
If you had dogs, and you separated them into two groups (e.g., big dogs and little dogs) you have a binary. It doesn't matter how you separate them (e.g., long hair and short hair, light coat and dark coat, domesticated and wild, etc...) as long as there are two, mutually exclusive groups.
Non-binary, as such, refers to a categorization model that does not limit itself to only two options. This could be due to including more specific options (e.g., a system with 72 genders), or as a result of rejecting the premise that the assumed categories represent mutually exclusive properties.
So, for our dogs, a non-binary model could include more specific categories (e.g., breed, sizes, coat-textures, etc.), or it could reject the idea that the binary model is valid (e.g., dangerous breeds vs gentle breeds).
I don't know why Chelsea Clinton said that. I don't know why it matters that she did. I assume she meant "a person with a penis and beard can be a woman."
He's a real human
Jordan Peterson is human, first if all. I'm grateful for his book 12 Rules. His insight helped me enormously. Thank you, Dr Peterson,
Couldn't agree more!
As a mental health professional, I couldn't agree more with your post! I applaud Jordan for seeking treatment for issues that stemmed from medication that he took in order to help cope with an extremely difficult hand of cards. As so many people do in the public eye, he could've easily chosen to keep his struggle private. I think his treatment and subsequent recovery will empower him personally and professionally. His example of vulnerability is something to cherish, in my opinion. Like so many aspects of mental health, we can't be our healthiest/best selves without honesty. Thanks for the great article, Jonathan! :)
When the disclosure invalidates the article
Sit this one out. He's your ex supervisor, you're a fan, and you remain in contact with him.
Nobody is mocking him for getting help. They're mocking him for being absolutely full of sh!t while raking in millions from the snake oil he sells to his fans. Your bias has rendered you useless as a voice on this one
Knowing someone and liking
Knowing someone and liking them does not automatically make your opinion of them invalid, especially if you disclose the fact as the author has done. Does the fact that you - apparently - don't know Peterson, but clearly dislike him, render your opinion invalid?
"Nobody is mocking him for getting help." I'm willing to bet that about one minute's research would show that to be false, if for no other reason then anyone admitting to a vulnerability online will attract trolls.
Dr. Peterson has helped millions.
Just because a person knows Dr. Peterson and has worked with him does not render their opinion useless. I am student as well, and have worked with Dr. Peterson as well, and believe he is one of the most honourable, compassionate and intellectual human beings I ever met in my life. Prior to his fame, he always spoke of his family history of depression, and he is not ashamed of speaking about it and getting help when needed. He suffered a lot this year with his wife's cancer diagnosis, and he did the right thing by getting medical help.
The author is entitled to an opinion
ESPECIALLY since he knows him. The disclosure was to be admired and I doubt he would have been less sympathetic had he not known him.
But your point of writing with integrity is noted. Maybe while Jordan is in rehab, he could learn such elegant phrasing such as "absolute piece of shit" that you've incorporated into your erudite prose reminiscent of Chaucer, Yeats and Austen.
Perhaps you should reread Jordan's positions on getting your own act together before criticizing others.
Chaucerian Obscenity
Apologies for butting in, but I had to note that Chaucer was a particularly poor example in this context. The term "Chaucerian obscenity" is widely accepted in academic circles, as it relates to the way obscenity in a given text exists in tension with the work's underlying substance, virtue, and validity, and the ways in which that obscenity encourages engagement with and preservation of a given text.
I was compelled to comment,
I was compelled to comment, only to share my appreciate for this insightful and well-written article. Then I scrolled down to find the comment box, and on my way, saw the preexisting comments. The remarks that people are making virtually demonstrate the very points this article so eloquently delineate. As a clinical psychologist, I am a regular reader of Psychology Today articles. I can only hope that these disparaging comments were not left by mental health professionals. This is an educational/professional forum, not a Twitter post. Furthermore, there is NOTHING political about this article. For those of you tainting your comments with identity politics, I suggest you re-read this article with a bit of objectivity. In fact, if there is a "political" agenda in this article at all, it is that human psychology is an equal opportunity employer. We are all vulnerable to emotional pain and suffering. Thus, kicking people when they are down, despite whether your political beliefs align, is fundamentally callous and essentially harassment, rooted in bullying tactics.
Professional Ethics
Anonymous wrote:I can only hope that these disparaging comments were not left by mental health professionals. This is an educational/professional forum, not a Twitter post. Furthermore, there is NOTHING political about this article. For those of you tainting your comments with identity politics....
As a mental health professional, I have to disagree with your conclusion that there is nothing political about this article, and to push back against the idea that "identity politics" is not relevant to our professional conduct, particularly as it relates to psychoeducation and professional advocacy for our clients who belong to marginalized communities.
There are political aspects to this article, to the extent that the author referenced Peterson "ruffling feathers," suggested his work had an overall "beneficial effect on the world," and accused Peterson's detractors of being motivated by political disagreement. It seems reasonable to note that these are political statements, and as such, discussing their implications is valid, particularly in the context of ethical responsibility as clinicians and educators.
As to the accusation of "tainting" the comments with "identity politics," can you see no way in which it might be valid to note potential similarities between the callous response Peterson has gotten (and its greater effect individuals in need of treatment for substance use) and the callous disregard for the rights and well-being of trans individuals affected by Peterson's public statements and personal political advocacy?
Even more broadly, is it not valid to note that if we have an obligation to counter misperceptions related to the scientific, academic, and professional understanding of Substance Use Disorders, then we also have an obligation to counter misperceptions related to the scientific, academic, and professional understanding of trans identity?
Misperceptions
Please be careful when referring to "the scientific, academic, and professional understanding of trans identity". These communities are not a homogeneous group that has arrived at some kind of consensus regarding trans identity. They are, in fact, continually engaged in debate over a changing landscape with powerful and possibly permanent medical interventions whose long term effects have not been studied in sufficient detail to be considered conclusive. The danger inherent in these discussions rests on the self censoring currently happening in academia for fear of retribution from administration or by students. The day academia fails to challenge the prevailing wisdom is the day the academy officially dies. Bring back the Einstein - Bohr-like debates so science can progress forward.
Agreed, Somewhat
I see what you mean. My intention in listing those was to acknowledge the multiple areas that have relevant, valid, and not entirely overlapping conceptualizations of gender. I specifically wanted to push back against the idea many (including Peterson) often promote, that the scientific conceptualization is somehow the most or only valid take. I should have been more clear, and I thank you for pointing that out.
As to self-censorship in academia, I have yet to see any evidence of this not put forward by someone who intends to benefit financially from the attention that allegation affords them, or people who view pushing debunked theories as "new and challenging" ideas (e.g, Charles Murray).
Self-censorship
Good Day Culturally Competent Clinician,
Two points:
1. Self-censorship is a reality among many faculty and college-age students. Bringing attention to this issue might result in financial gain for some, but it also comes with a steep emotional cost. Personnally, I believe the financial gain from publicity is a systemic problem that has effected the social sciences and psychology at its core. This is especially true with cultural/racial studies by people who publish books for sale on amazon instead of/or in addition to publication in journals. Studies which include current hot button issues such as white privilege and microaggressions.
2. Let's acknowledge that the trans movement is not just about redefining the meaning of gender, but a fundamental challenge to the very definition of biological sex without a clear understanding of societal cost. If one believes gender, and now sex, is a social construct then society must engage in the painful discussions necessary to construct this new understanding. This means conversations, conversations that are considered by many verboten in today's highly politicized world.
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next










