He’s gone full-on hate monger.

I’ll also post the transcript here tomorrow evening.

Hey, friends:

Sorry for the horrifying title screen — it’s part of my long term strategy. Pretty soon you’ll be begging me to get back to posting about spiders!
What I’m going to do today is address some comments people have left for me about Jordan Peterson. You see, there’s been this ongoing argument that Jordan Peterson is not transphobic, and that there is no evidence that he is. For instance:

“And now you’re engaging in the exact same type of evidence free hyperbole as Myers: Being opposed to compelled speech = “throwing people under the bus”. How? “For personal gain”, how has he gained? “Pretending they are a threat”…No, he’s saying gov imposed compelled speech is a threat not they (trans). You can argue the legitimacy of that if you like. But pretending Peterson’s issue is with trans in this instance is dishonest and that is exactly what I am calling Myers, and now you, out on.”

Notice how generous I am, leaving the names off these comments. It’s a shame how obtuse Peterson fans are, that they can’t even acknowledge the source of his popularity was his blatant transphobia. You have to be deeply stupid to fail to notice it. Go ahead, guys, just admit it. You’re all a bit transphobic if you can’t even see what a champion of your fears Peterson is. But here’s more:

“It would be nice if you could have included the supposed transphobic comments he made. Peterson’s fans won’t see this, but I don’t want to have to go through that talk to find it. Isn’t that a Peterson tactic?”

That was on a video about his absurd claims about DNA…but sure, it’s easy to find examples going back years. What’s wrong with people who can’t see that?

“I realize Peterson’s claims about consciousness traveling up and down the micro and macro levels is nonsense, but so are the accusations of transphobia towards Peterson and Dawkins. Myers never really bothers to explain how they’re transphobic. At least not in this video. I think Myers should maybe spend more time investigating his own biases and irrationalism than those of Peterson if he has such obvious blind spots.”

Right. Claiming that Peterson is openly transphobic is as ridiculous as claiming that he can see DNA when he takes drugs. But hey! Let’s go crazy!

“Peterson is a genius, and he has added greatly to the public discourse. He was right about c16. No one has been prosecuted yet, but the government is threatening to shut down internet speech they don’t like, and people are losing their jobs for using the wrong words. Correct, he’s very discursive as Dawkins pointed out, but when he talks it’s often like thinking out loud, and though he can occasionally say things that sound ridiculous (to me) it often ends up being worthwhile.
(By the way, your ‘transphobia’ comment is absurd, childish, and uncharitable. Talk about a cheap shot.)”

Huh. So his claim that Canada bill c16 would sound the death knell of free speech was right…except that none of his predictions ever came true. Never mind that his entire schtick was built on his demand to the right to be rude to transgender students — oh no, it’s childish to say he’s transphobic.

No, Peterson is not a genius. He’s a rambling, opinionated kook who has gathered a following by asserting certainty about things he merely finds personally offensive — and since he’s a puritanical authoritarian, there sure is a lot he will whine about. It’s a self-perpetuating grift.

But OK, you want evidence that Peterson is transphobic. Perhaps you’d like evidence that the sky is blue and that rain gets you wet, next? I will oblige. It’s pretty easy, since Peterson willingly opens his mouth and lets the hate dribble out. Actually, the hard part was paring it down to a reasonable length, because if there’s one thing that will inspire Peterson to long-windedness, it’s talking about himself, and so much of what he says is totally bonkers.

Peterson was recently banned from Twitter for this patently transphobic tweet.

“Remember when Pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.”

I could rest my case there, but Peterson celebrated his lucrative recruitment by the Daily Wire to painstakingly dissect his own tweet, demanding that it be explained to him why it was considered offensive. Not only is it transphobic, I think we can put to rest the idea that he’s a genius, since he struggles for 15 minutes over figuring out why Twitter rejected it. I’ll try to be a little more brief.

His first defense is that “pride” is objectively and accurately a “sin”, therefore the first part is factually correct.

So what did I say that might constitute harassment? Many things, hypothetically. Let’s begin with “Remember when pride was a sin?” Although that is merely a factual statement because under the old rules, applicable even a decade ago, pride was a sin, and had been recognized as perhaps the cardinal sin for thousands of years previously. It still might be regarded as unacceptable to the authoritarian moralists who now insist, for example, that we celebrate Pride Month (not hour or day or week, but month) and who have literally called it PRIDE MONTH instead of LGBT+ Month. I don’t regard PRIDE as a virtue; it has been classically regarded as a sin.

I don’t see sexual orientation or sexual desire of any sort as something to celebrate or to take PRIDE in, and what I said was merely a fact.

It’s odd to claim that others are authoritarian moralists because they don’t accept his authoritarian morality.That’s what sin is, an archaic religious concept that certain behaviors are wrong because god, or rather, god’s priests said so. It allows no discussion of whether the behavior is justified, or good for the individual or society, it just IS, because the interpreters of divine morality dictate that it is. Sorry, Jordan, yammering about sin is not effective.

He also doesn’t understand pride month. It’s about pride in finally being, to some extent, free. We should be proud about building a free society, just as we should be horrified when we see those freedoms abridged. He also has a beam in his eye, since arrogance and self-pride are some of the defining characteristics of the Peterson persona.

OK, he knows he wasn’t banned for citing Christian dogma. So what does he think the problem was?

Next phrase to interrogate: “And Ellen Page…” Now, why did I stop there? Because, in all likelihood, it was this seemingly innocuous phrase, including the name of a well-known actress (there, I’m in trouble again), that likely resulted in my ban. I committed the fatal crime of what has come to be known in the appalling censorial terminology of the insane activists as “dead-naming.” That’s the act of referring to someone who has “transitioned” (another hated piece of jargon and slogan) by the name, and by inference the gender (really “sex”) that everyone knew them by previously — and in the case of Ellen/Elliot, that millions of people recognized and knew. So I should have called him/her/they Elliot instead of Ellen, although, as we will discover, that would have made it impossible for me to say what I wanted to and need to say in the remaining phrases. Not that such a problem would bother those who are objecting to my speech in the first place.

Why insist on calling someone by a name they reject? It’s an announcement that Peterson has no respect for Elliot Page; his decisions are to be ignored. It’s a silly complaint, since people change their names all the time, often at major life-changing events. To give just one example, there was a woman named Tammy Roberts who married Jordan Peterson, and changed her name to Tammy Peterson. What would we think of someone who insisted that her real last name was Roberts, and who repeatedly called her Roberts, even after multiple corrections? It would be a declaration that they do not respect her marriage decision, which I’ll presume she made after careful consideration, and which she considers a significant transition. This is exactly the same situation. A change in social status was acknowledged with a change in name. DOCTOR Peterson claims to appreciate other cultures, perhaps he should have noticed that this is a common phenomenon, and that he also has used naming and titling conventions to distinguish his transitions in society.

He says accepting Elliot Page’s name would have made it “impossible” to say the rest of his tirade. I wish. This is where he gets very twisty and silly.

The next phrase is “just had her breasts removed.” This bit suffers from a very similar problem. I employed the forbidden pronoun “her” when Elliot is now to be regarded as a “he,” or else. But there’s a conundrum here, to say the least — and not just for me, although I have been banned because of it. Was Elliot/Ellen a she or a he (or Ellen or Elliot) when she or he or they (that’s Elliot or Ellen, by the way) had his or her or their breasts removed? If he or she was a he, then why was it necessary to have the mastectomy? And how could those I am writing to make sense of what I was saying if it was “his” breasts that were removed? Were those male breasts or female breasts that were removed? If they were male breasts, then why were they removed? If they were female breasts (and had therefore become objectionable to the degree that surgery generally reserved for cancer treatment was morally obligatory) then wasn’t Elliot still Ellen and he still she?

How could I possibly have written that sentence in any sensible manner whatsoever while simultaneously making my point understandably — and not breaking Twitter’s rules against so-called hateful conduct? And Elliot Page just had his breasts removed?

He said it: “Elliot Page just had his breasts removed”. It wasn’t impossible after all! And that was a perfectly comprehensible English sentence that no one would have had any problem understanding! Jordan Peterson proves himself wrong, once again.

All that argle-bargle about “male breasts” and “female breasts” was nothing but reductive nonsense. Men and women have breasts. Sometimes they have to be reduced, by choice or necessity, in both men and women. Men have mastectomies. This is a distinction that was irrelevant to his complaint. But no, it was “impossible” for him to speak without breaking the rules!

And so it was impossible to communicate what had happened to my audience without, apparently, running afoul of the impossible and absurd rules that now hypothetically govern morality itself in the days of the degenerated postmodern and Marxist ethos that we must still, no matter how impossible it is, abide by — or else.

No, it wasn’t at all impossible. “Elliot Page had his breasts removed” is a simple and ordinary thing to say, except, of course, that using plain speech would make the absurdity of his argument apparent.

Respecting other people’s identity is neither postmodern nor Marxist, but again, he uses those terms as meaningless jargon to inflame his simple-minded audience. Falling back on right-wing tropes is familiar ground for an ideologue like Peterson. This isn’t the most appalling thing he has to say, though.

And, finally, with regard to the final phrase “criminal physician,” I must say that I have had some post-coital (so to speak) regrets about that phrase. It is clearly the case that the surgical operation performed by the butchers who butchered Elliot/Ellen was legal. So, was it criminal or not? Were the operations undertaken by the fascist physicians who carried out the Nazi medical experiments legal? Yes, under the laws of the time. But were they criminal? I’ll leave that question up to you to answer.

He DARED to say that? He compares gender affirmation surgery to Nazi war crimes against citizens? How vile can he get.

OK, I guess this is my day to repudiate obvious stupidities said by Jordan Peterson.

• Unlike Nazi butchery of prisoners, gender affirmation surgery is done with the willing consent of all individuals.
• Nazi crimes in concentration camps were intended to torture, harm, and kill their victims. Gender affirmation surgery is intended to help the patients who request it.
• Under the laws of the time, under the laws of all time, consciously and maliciously causing extreme harm to a human being is wrong. Nazis got around the morality by pretending members of various ethnic groups were not human.

Peterson is doing the same thing. The end result of his ideas is to deny groups of people their human rights. The Nazis also invoked their god to justify grossly evil actions, just like Dr Jordan Peterson.

He says he’d rather die than retract that tweet.

And I’m not taking down that tweet, or “acknowledging” that my tweet “violated the Twitter rules.” Up yours, woke moralists. We’ll see who cancels who. And I think, as well, that you woke folks at Twitter, working so hard to improve the world by so carelessly censoring (under the morally superior guise of “regulating hate”) have no idea what a tangled web you’ve entangled yourself in. Again. Yet again.

James Stephanie Sterling said something the other day that I think belongs here.

Has there been a more annoyingly pointless and mindlessly recycled insult as “woke”?

Well, yeah, “cultural Marxist” and “postmodern” are up there with the Peterson cult.

Peterson is a horrible, hateful fraud who belongs on a channel that also features people like Ben Shapiro. I have one more comment from a viewer here that I want to address.

“I like Peterson, I’m not religious and I know he’s not an expert on lobster biology, But I like him. He seems like a good guy who seems to genuinely care about helping people especially young men. His book was common sense good advice.”

No. I don’t accept that. He is not a good guy, he is a hate-monger. He does not genuinely care about helping people, or he wouldn’t have such a long history of hating and harming people who do not accept his archaic Biblical morality. He does not help young men — he leads them further along his path of bitter prejudice. Wake up, guy. He is part of a large number of entitled a-holes who are wrecking this country and the world. Enough.

You know what, friends? I’d rather make videos about spiders. They aren’t as repulsive and venomous as creatures like Peterson. I’d also rather talk with people like you, and these, my patreon supporters.

If you’re here to tell me how good and helpful Jordan Peterson is, block me now, give me a dislike, and fuck off. I’m not going to tolerate apologists for hate.