Agrees. If you actually watch his interviews his main issue was with the law, not trans people.

That might be a bit more convincing if it was some gigantic tome of a proposal that was only relevant to trans people in some tangental aspect.

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...

You posted a reference to the law. Good start. Now post a reference to what he actually said.

No, it's not. Incorrect on all levels. Please stop. Do yourself a favor and give everyone else the courtesy of checking your references.

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."?

Do you notice that your reply here is so lacking in substance that you could copy and paste it on just about any argument on any topic?

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".

Can you explain how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”?

> I've described the content of Peterson's work

You’ve done no such thing. Not at any level above name-calling, anyway.

I've described the content of and linked to the full text of C-16 elsewhere in this thread. Have you read it before?

> 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.

> I've described the content of and linked to the full text of C-16 elsewhere in this thread.

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.

Linking to C-16 is not explaining how “his arguments against C-16” are “transphobia”.

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.

Jordan Peterson rose to prominence by publicly misrepresenting and demonizing Canadian House Bill C-16, a bill which extends human rights protections to Transgender people.

No, he was specifically opposed to compelled speech, not the trans protection piece. Read his interviews.

There is no compelled speech in the bill, see the full text. If you have the misapprehension that there was, would that be something you got from Jordan Peterson?