> 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've described the content of Peterson's work
You’ve done no such thing. Not at any level above name-calling, anyway.