Name: 2017/02/11:瑞爾森大學的一場煽動性討論 (2017/02/11: An incendiary discussion at Ryerson U)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:45:17.000Z
Duration: 1 h 51 min 30 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

So I've been talking about your cause, I guess since you started your videos and since you started having troubles with human rights tribunals or threats by U of T.

程度副詞

And I just think it's common sense that says that I think that promoting critical thinking, helping people to be able to tolerate subjects that they may not feel comfortable about.

情態副詞

But then they should be able to hear process not based on emotions but based on an actual analysis of the facts, the evidence, the reality versus some agenda being shoved down their throat, whether it's media through, the professors and anyone teaching in academia knows that there are professors who have no problem with basically teaching their truth as fact.

Within my own organization are the Ontario Psychological Association.

I got a lot of flak from other psychologists who thought, No, we can't allow this type of speech to happen that discuss that you're supposed to have a travesty, really regulate.

When you had those other professors coming in and talking about the issue, some psychologist wrote pieces in in national or immediate publication, saying this kind of discussion should not happen.

So in this from psychologist, the ones you're supposed best trained to be able to tolerate the discomfort that goes around, goes along with discussing uncomfortable topics.

So I was hoping for you to be able to share with the audience your experience in the last few months trying to promote this.

Like, you know what you're basically trying to promote, which I let you describe your whores.

OK, so what do you think about those videos from an attack?

Well, I think there were two things that Oh, I should give us some background on the videos, I guess.

I mean, I just made them in my office at home.

I wasn't I had no idea what the consequence would be.

This sort of my thoughts about party boat not so much Bill see 16 as the background policies that surrounded especially on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website, cause the bill itself.

The only part of it that isn't innocuous is the insistence that the insistence on transforming the hates the hate speech codes, including including harassment, discrimination based on gender what was a gender identity, gender expression in the eight speech codes?

Anyways, I started digging more into the background of the Ontario Human Rights Commission website.

In the policies surrounding he'll see 16 to call.

The McCauley is barely to scratch the surface.

They're they're unbelievably badly written and contact internally, contradictory and over inclusive and dangerous.

And I mean they do things, for example, like make employers responsible for all the speech acts of their employees, whether they have intended or unintended consequences.

That's completely the only reason you would write a law like that is to get as many employers in trouble as you could possibly manage, because there's no other reason for formulating the legislation.

He's starting to teach a little bit about the background for this sort of thing.

In one of his classes, he showed me the developmental progression off the policies surrounding Bill See 16 and originally they were written in a much more in a tighter format.

But then they were farmed out for what they called public consultation, which basically meant they ran them by a variety of people who, I would say, we're strongly only after the standard of the political spectrum, and they basically in order to not bother anyone who they had consulted when they decided, for example, that gender identity should be nothing but subjective choice, which is I don't even know what to say about that.

If you're a psychologist and you have any sense at all, that's a completely insane proposition.

It's first of all predicated on the idea that your identity is your subjective choice, and that's never been the case for any sort of identity.

Anywhere you take, I get Your identity is two fold.

The first thing that your identity is a functional set of tools to help you operate in the world, meaning repeat A, you know, just scratched the surface of PJ even and you find out it's, you know, Children start to construct their identities really, when they're breastfeeding, because that's when you first start your social interactions.

You start integrating your grief, your basic biological reflexes from a genie in perspective into something resembling a social relationship.

Because breastfeeding actually happens to be quite a complex act, and then you expand your you're developing identity out into the small, microcosmic social world of family, basically starting with your mother.

But then you have siblings and your father and your relatives, you know, conventionally speaking.

And your identity is a negotiated game, and and you're not the only one in charge of it by any stretch of the imagination at all.

I mean, one of the things that PJ pointed out was that between the ages of two and four, and I think later research is really having this home that even kids who were hyper aggressive to There's a small proportion of them, never like that learned to integrate their subjective desires into a broader social game and become socially acceptable to other Children.

You know, what they're doing is playing their identity into being, and then once they're older than about four and they've become properly socialized.

So other Children actually want to play with them because that's the critical issues, the fundamental issues.

Then, um, then then the peer community of Children helps him bootstrap their identity up to something that will eventually approximate in adult identity.

So so partly your identity is instead of tools with which you function in the actual world, and part of it is a negotiated agreement with the other people around you, and that's all being taken out of the that's that's all.

Actually, as far as I could tell, that's Lining.

Theorizing is technically illegal now in Ontario, and I'm not even talking about the potential biological basis of identity because the idea that identity has no biological basis, that's just wrong, unite factually wrong.

So and we've written a social constructionists.

We've written a radical social construction is view of identity into the law.

But even worse than that, we've gone beyond social construction.

J was a construction is into just pure whim.

Your identity could be at any moment what you assume that it's going to be.

There's nothing about that proposition that's reasonable.

So I was looking into this and I thought, This is just beyond comprehension that we've written that idea into the policy surrounding Bill, see 16 So that so I made that video has turned to sort that I don't have to figure out even what it meant.

First of all, with regards to gender identity.

And if you're making laws you don't get to muck around with words.

And so it's a modified by moment distribution.

Because almost everyone who has a biological identity of male or female identifies as male or female.

It's 99.7% and you could argue that that's a little tighter than it would be if society was more accepting of gender variation, Let's say, But even if it went down to 99% which would be an increase of, like what?

Well, it would be almost in order of magnitude increase.

You still have the overwhelming number of people whose gender identity matches their biological sex, and then you can.

You can stack on top of biological sex, gender identity, virtually perfect match, then gender expression.

Almost everyone who it's biologically male or female, who identifies this biologically male or female, expresses themselves as male or female.

and then the vast majority of them have a sexual orientation that's in keeping with their traditional keeping with their biological sex, gender identity, gender expression.

So now we have a law that says those air independent Guess what?

That's not the definition of independence, and you can't just playing much games with your legislative terminology.

If there are obviously exceptions, and I never argue once in the videos that I put out, despite what helping reacted to them, that there weren't exceptions.

And if you look at temperament, for example, you know the big differences between men and women are agreeable.

Fundamentally, women are about half a standard deviation, more agreeable.

And they're about half a standard deviation, higher and negative emotion.

And it also accounts for the reasons why women are about 3 to 4 times more likely to suffer cross culturally from depression and anxiety where he's been or more likely to be aggressively in prison and to and to drink and low agreeableness is actually the best predictor of incarceration among men those air solid biological differences.

But if you try to segregate men and women using only those two dimensions, you want to get it right about 75% of the time.

And the idea that there are no biological differences between men and women.

It's such a preposterous claim that I can't even believe that we would ever have that discussion.