Instead, this 1-page bill is entirely about trans people, and adding them to a long list of groups already protected from discrimination by law. It is 1 page long. It adds 4 words to passages of existing law.
Here [1] is the entire text of it, read it for yourself.
Peterson has no comparative problems with the existing law protecting discrimination for the following groups: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability.
He does, however, specifically believe that extending these same protections already offered to everyone else to trans people amounts to a threat to society.
[1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2017_13/F...
Who was it who said, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."?
In this thread, I've mentioned Peterson's works. I've described the content of Peterson's work, I've made reference to specific claims he has made (eg his claims of an academic Postmodern Marxist plot, his arguments against C-16) and my assessment of them (conspiracy theory &, transphobia, respectively). People are welcome to object to my assessments but the level of critique of them by you here and ekianjo above amounts to "nuh-uh".
> I've described the content of Peterson's work
You’ve done no such thing. Not at any level above name-calling, anyway.
> You’ve done no such thing.
I don't mean to say my description is comprehensive, I mean that people objecting to my analysis so far and claiming I am unfamiliar with his work haven't even bothered to mention any specific ideas from his work, and it is hard to take their objections seriously.
Did you even read my question? Linking to C-16 is not explaining how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”.
> haven't even bothered to mention any specific ideas from his work
Neither have you, which is what the people you’re referring to are objecting to.
Of course it isn't, but it allows me to know what you are and aren't already familiar with, so I can know whether I need to first explain that part of it or not. I have accused Peterson of 'fearmongering' regarding this bill, and a substantial part of that is a deeply misleading characterization of the bill.
I am trying to understand "are you familiar with C-16 through Peterson's portrayals of it and secondary commentary, or are you familiar with the primary text of the bill itself". I am also curiou whether you've seen the primary text around the time of the controversy and, or whether you've seen the text of the bill only after seeing it linked here.
I would argue Molyneux is not remotely part of the IDW. I haven't heard anyone within it say anything remotely positive about him or willing to associate with him. Eric's brother, Bret an evolutionary biologist, regularly mocks Molyneux and explains why his interpretation of evolutionary theory is wrong [2][3][4][5].
Also part of the IDW name originates from Eric's observation that mainstream academics unwilling to either publicly debate his findings or defend theirs. When those findings could potentially decrease the impact of their work or demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor [6]. He's noticed this in other fields too, like biology with Bret's theory on cultural evolution. Only just this year did he get a chance to debate Dawkins.
[1] 'Why the "Intellectual Dark Web" has such a crazy name': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr0OX6ai4Qw
[2] https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1070217128211443712
[3] https://twitter.com/bretweinstein/status/1070127960009564160
[4] https://twitter.com/bretweinstein/status/1103765054191656963
[5] https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1070150469895413760
[6] Eric's talk at Stanford from 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_brHQRMu9k
Examples include: The "Brights", the "Rationalist" Societies, "Euthanasia" (translating to 'good death').
The "Intellectual" DarkWeb is populated by many examples fringe figures whose contributions are considered laughable in their own claimed fields, Stephan Molyneux being a complete joke in Philosophical circles but impressing his teenage and tech-trained audience is a prime example. Christina Hoff Sommers is another figure whose brand of feminism seems far more widely supported by people who've never taken the time to read a book by a single other feminist. Sam Harris's forays into Moral Philosophy and Free Will again do not find a sympathetic audience of any significant size among people who actually study these subjects and know much about them. Jordan B Petersen is an unusual case because his noteriety and audience is far more to do with his political statements (attacking trans people, misogynist comments, claims of a conspiracy of Post-Modern Marxists) that are substantially separatable from both his academic work (Maps of Meaning) or his weird self-help manual (even though this shoehorns in his conspiracy theorizing).