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.

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.

And so I've been promoting this.

I've been promoting it.

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.

Yeah.

Okay.

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.

I was destroyed.

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.

It's rather innocuous.

It's only Loki paragraphs along.

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?

I thought, that's that's weird.

There's something up there.

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.

And I've also calling.

Mine came in recently from university.

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.

And they do that through play.

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.

But that's functional.

It has nothing to do with women.

It's it's it's It's a crazy idea, then.

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.

Isn't P?

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.

That's not a tenable solution.

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.

The terminology is messy in the extreme.

First of all, with regards to gender identity.

Gender identity is not a spectrum.

It's a modified by movie distribution.

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

You have to use the right 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.

It gets it gets people in trouble.

So it's not a spectrum, and that's that.

It's a modified by mobile distribution.

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.

Of course there are exceptions.

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

Justin Neuroticism.

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

That's compassionate blindness.

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

And that's cross cultural, by the way.

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.

So there's a substantial overlap.

But that still doesn't mean there.

That's not a spectrum.

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.

I mean, there's women.

Men have wider jaws, mentor taller.

They have brought her shoulders.

Women have more endurance and endurance sports.

Women have a subcutaneous layer of fact.

The shape is different.

The way the arms were placed is different.

The voice is different.

That's just gross morphology.

I'm not even talking about genitalia, and then you could look a micro structures.

There's differences between men and women at every level of the human microscopic church, from the cellular, all the way up to the social.

So, like, what in the world are we talking about?

What's going on here?

It's crazy.

So that was video number one video number two was a bloody human resources department at the University of Toronto has adopted an equity position.

Okay, so what equity means is that it doesn't mean equality of opportunity.

It means equality of outcome.

And that is so This is the idea.

The idea is that you take us a social institution like the university.

And then you look at the organization of that university and every single strategy from the executive level that we don't to the student level.

Then what you do is you do an analysis of each level by community demography, right?

You get to define the demographic characteristics that you're going to discuss, However, which is actually a big problem.

Then you make the presupposition that unless that organization at every level matches the demographic representation of off of people at every level, then it's corrupt, oppressive and discriminatory, and it needs to be changed.

Okay, so you think What?

What's wrong with that?

Every levels have 50 50 men and women.

Let's say it's like you're really sure about that.

Are you so sure about that?

You don't think there's any natural differences in interest between men and women?

Well, if you don't think so, then why are most psychology?

Planets is 80% women and that and that and that differentiation is accelerating rapidly, Like I've seen it over the course of my career from maybe 60% man at the beginning of my career to like 80% women.

Now that man occupied more of the positions of the stems in the stem stem fields.

At least for now.

It's the same in bloody Scandinavia.

It's 20 to 1 nurses, 21 women to man nurses in Scandinavia and 21 men, two women in engineering and max in Scandinavia.

So what's happened in Scandinavia as they made this side or egalitarian in terms of its legal and social structures is that the gender differences in personality between men and women have got bigger, not smaller.

So what that means is that social construction isn't isn't wrong.

That's what it means wrong, disproved.

It's exactly the opposite of what the theory would have predicted, because the theory predicted, and God only knew how it was going to sort of tell folks.

It's like not like people knew this to begin with.

The idea was that as you equalize the social, the social structure that the differences between men and women would disappear.

Guess what?

That didn't happen.

And it's not studies of just a few 100 people in a few locations, those air population wide studies, and they'd be replicated multiple times.

So and the funny thing, yes, is that so?

They're temperamental differences between men and women.

It's an neuroticism, and on agreements are not the only temperamental differences.

So if you fragment extra version fragments into assertiveness and gregariousness, women or gregarious, many more assertive if you fragment conscientiousness and orderliness and industrious women are more orderly and men are more industrious.

If you fragment openness, which is the creativity dimension into interest in ideas and the interest in aesthetics, you fight that women are more interested in aesthetics and men are more interested in ideas.

So so because you've been fraction of the Big 5 to 10 you get gender differences across all of them, and they're not trivial.

Either.

They make a difference.

So okay, so anyways, back to the putting thing of all the preposterous and idiotic ideas.

So, first of all, to make gender equity across every dimension of organization, you have to assume that men and women have identical interests or and temperaments, and that if they don't, the state should intervene to bloody well ensure that they do, which is something for all your women to figure out.

Because now there's many, many what positions in society that women preferentially occupied.

So what you gonna do about that?

And what you gonna do about Asians?

Because they occupy preferential positions as well?

You know, they're overrepresented in all sorts of professional institutions, and the probability is that that's going to increase.

What you gonna do about that?

What about the Jews?

But I'm gonna do about them because they have there at the same position as the Asians get the quotas on all those people.

What kind of stupidity is that?

And then it's worse to because let's say you equalize women.

And just for the sake of argument across all these different dimensions of society, well, then, what you gonna do?

Are you going to equalize for black women and Latino women and Asian women?

Are you gonna stop type black women because it's not like they're all the same?