Yes kids are smart and they also have no prejudices until a certain age. However. We are talking here about complex situations not even 1% of the population face. And then you try to implement it in the language. Yes maybe one more pronoun will not confuse them. But as I said before some pledge here for the whole package which are like 5 different ones so far. Good luck trying to teach kids when they have to use it and when.
Also I do not think you understand how much legal stuff has to be done if you want to implement it into our systems.As I and many people said before. Using it on a private matter is a non issue. Peterson is not arguing to use it if you want to. He is arguing against forcing people to use it.
I think you need to think and inform yourself first what has to be done on a legal way to do this. Then we can talk. Oh and I am not terrified by it I am just a realist not a dreamer with no sense of reality like you seem to be.
So what you're saying is that you have a basis as to why children would not be able to handle more pronouns? Because the alternative is that you are extrapolating your own personal difficulties and projecting them on children without any actual basis to it. As far as Jordan Peterson goes...
"He emphasized the state should halt funding neo-Marxist faculties and courses, while students should avoid neo-Marxist disciplines like women's studies, ethnic studies and racial studies, as well other courses "corrupted" by the ideology such as sociology, anthropology and English literature." (ba
"He stated that his objection to the bill was based on potential free speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, as he claimed he could then be prosecuted under provincial human rights laws if he refuses to call a transsexual student or faculty member by their preferred pronoun."
"When asked in September 2016 if he would comply with the request of a student to use a preferred pronoun, Peterson said "it would depend on how they asked me ... If I could detect that there was a chip on their shoulder, or that they were [asking me] with political motives, then I would probably say no ... If I could have a conversation like the one we're having now, I could probably meet them on an equal level"." - Essentially declares that he would withhold preferred pronouns if he didn't like the person or their behavior, which would be akin to being racist to someone because you don't like them.
Jordan Peterson is also neck-deep in criticisms of Marxism, and attempts to draw comparisons between Bill C-16 to the deaths of 100 million people (a disputed number, and a strange way by which to tally deaths since we do not, for instance, tally deaths "caused by capitalism").
So yeah, Jordan Peterson's views on this subject are not valuable, especially in light of the fact that he has some pretty crap views on trans people period. And ESPECIALLY considering that Jordan Peterson does not actually understand the bill itself:
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qbnamx/no-the-trans-rights-bill-doesnt-criminalize-free-speech
"Bill C-16 adds the words "gender identity or expression" to a list of protected classes under the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code.
The Human Rights Act protects certain groups, prone to discrimination, from being fired, evicted, or otherwise discriminated against in federally-regulated workplaces, housing projects, or through Ottawa-run services.
"The addition to the human rights code is not about criminalizing anything," said University of Toronto professor Brenda Cossman, pointing out that violating the human rights code can only be punished through fines or non-financial remedies, like changing hiring practices, but never jail time.
The Supreme Court, in a 2013 case, found that for someone to run afoul of the Human Rights Act, it needed to be actively encouraging hatred.
"People are free to debate or speak out against the rights or characteristics of vulnerable groups, but not in a manner which is objectively seen to expose them to hatred and its harmful effects," the top court ruled.
What's more, Ontariowhere Peterson worksalready has human rights protections for transgender people in the provincial human rights code, thanks to a bill, virtually identical to C-16, that was passed by the Ontario legislature in 2012."
The concern over Bill C-16 is the same fear mongering about any rights bills. People were saying much the same thing about laws protecting discrimination of trans people in the workforce. What makes this different? What precedence demonstrates that Bill C-16 will have the result that Peterson claims?
