Popular mass movements challenging liberal elitism have found an outlet for their expression – Brexit in the UK, and in the US the rise of Donald Trump. A younger and more educated popular movement is coalescing in Canada around Jordan Peterson, a top-drawer academic, but more importantly a man of iron-like integrity and piercing common sense.

A number of countries are guilty of developing pernicious forms of legislation. In the UK, for example, today men can be accused of rape if a woman has consumed a large amount of alcohol as she is deemed to have no capacity to consent regardless of her other behaviour as I have explained previously on this site.

The law not only leaves men very exposed to rape accusations but encourages a total lack of responsibility among women themselves. Sometimes it is not until someone stands up against them, or else is prosecuted by them that we properly grasp the full extent of how threatening some of these laws really are.

The most recent addition to Canada’s ideological armoury comes in the form of an amendment to the Canada Human Rights Act, Bill C-16. This has made it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of gender identity and gender expression. Discrimination is predictably defined so broadly that it is not too far-fetched to imagine that someone who felt they had experienced unintentional, subtle, in fact even hidden, negative treatment on account of their hairstyle could cause an alleged perpetrator to be fined.

However, it is over the use of ‘non-binary’ gender pronouns zee, hir and per that Jordan Peterson has drawn the line. In order to accommodate the discrimination laws Toronto University has mandated the use of pronouns for ‘transgender’ people. Professor Peterson has said publicly, through a YouTube video, that he refuses to use them. He sees being forced to use these words as incredibly intrusive, inhibiting freedom of speech and expression; it is one thing to not be allowed to say something but being made to say something is a different category of law.

For the University of Toronto, backed up by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, this constitutes discrimination, and is punishable by law. For taking this position Peterson has a very real risk of losing his job, having his licence to practice clinical psychology revoked, research funding withheld and being seriously fined.

However, he has studied political psychopathology and the way language and deception can corrupt societies into genocidal entities. He knows just how much is at stake.

While freedom of speech has been eroded for decades with equal opportunities statements and unconscious bias training – with these attempts to erode male and female, the fundamental categories of human existence that our critical faculties should really be woken up. The liberal authorities are trying to make the fact of biological sex an irrelevance, and replace it with gender identity. This exists on a spectrum, and in New York they have mandated for almost as many categories of gender as there are types of Heinz’s baked bean. ‘Binary’ has become a dirty word and there is a contempt for the objective existence of the male and female sex.

This is exactly what the advocates of the equality agenda need. Although equality of outcome has all but been completely accepted as a legitimate endgame, the shadow of sex difference threatens to derail it at any time. If it were commonly accepted that men and women were differently affected by having children, or that having testosterone coursing through your body rather than oestrogen actually made a difference – why then, the rot would really set in. This danger is reflected in the constant hum of articles whose aim appears to be to quash ideas of gender difference at source.

The fact is that the advocates of Heinz’s gender identity, are firmly a minority. It is just they know how to pull the strings. The feminists don’t like it because it subverts their concept of patriarchy which depends on inequalities of power based on the fact of biological sex. It also deprives women of physical safe spaces because a man can go into a toilet or changing facility on the basis that he identifies as the opposite sex.

And as Peterson points out, this legislation doesn’t do any favours for ‘non-binary’ people themselves. They now come with significant legislative baggage which means that those who work, live or play with them may feel anxious that if they get their pronoun wrong they could seriously be fined.

However, it is Peterson who is accused of making it more difficult to be a transgender person. If this is true, Peterson is doing a good deed. We are forever reminded about how difficult and emotionally painful it is to be transgender. If this is the case, why encourage young people down this path? We know that record numbers of young people are coming forward with gender dysphoria, there will no doubt be more gender reassignment, more mental health problems and self-harming further down the line.

Sexual identity is to a certain extent malleable and by providing our young with social structures and roles they can fit into we spare them the burden of self-definition. Being male and female, single or married, childless or a mother or father – these are basic building blocks of life, and to render them problematic will deprive children and young people of a springboard from which they can go and explore.

But the damage goes deeper. Being male or female carries huge potentiality, is gloriously varied – and valued. To put all this variation in a separate transgender bucket risks leaving manhood or womanhood as two dimensional stereotypes, cardboard cut-outs, reinforcing the more rigid gender identities of by-gone times.

Professor Peterson draws our attention to an even more important reason why we should fight this type of gender ideology and this is because it messes with the truth. We are all male and female; the existence of a tiny minority of exceptions simply  prove the rule.

We have to go with our perception of reality, which does not mean males can’t play at or even become females and vice-a-versa. If we start to subordinate what we perceive to be true to what someone else tells us to believe, we enter an Orwellian world where two plus two equals five. This destroys the warp and weft of reality, ultimately weakening us as we will doubt our minds and our own common sense.


  1. I’ve posted this quite before, but it is more relevant than ever:

    “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
    ― Theodore Dalrymple

    • And wonderfully illustrated in the research from the Archives from the former East Germany. Far too little of this gets into the Anglosphere. In some ways the German compulsion to document has given a huge record of a society’s descent into a form of collective delusion as the reality increasingly diverged from the ideology. Its a shame Orwell’s prescient dissection of this, is in a book titled 1984, as I’m sure it would be more read were it not now “in the past”.

  2. I actually think this sort of thing is helpful in one respect. An awful lot of this sort of legislation in the Anglophone world is generated and passed on the quiet. For instance the entirely new offence of “Domestic Abuse” (with very vague ideas of what was abuse) was passed into law as part of an act that was mainly about serious crime and the proceeds of crime such as drugs dealing etc.
    In bringing into Law and publicity what has been done I think exposes the extent to which a small group has “taken over” .
    Clearly from any standpoint this particular issue is of concern to a tiny minority of the population and the application of law will look high handed, dis-proportionate and actually look complete nonsense to the general population. In short the SJWs are now overplaying their hand.
    The great success of the various agenda over the past three decades has been that much of the legal and institutional change has thus far achieved has been done “below the radar” while the surface appearance has looked like just being “nice”. With such cases the nonsense of such arguments about sex and gender for instance is exposed to a world outside academe/social services etc. leaves the unreality of these institutions and bumps into reality. The reality of practicality and logicality.
    There is a heck of a difference between public tolerance of the “crazy” carrying on by stars and celebrities, because it brightens up a dull hour. And buying into the idea that such nonsense is enforced on us all by Law.

  3. Can I come out and identify as a transgender crossdresser? I have XY chromosomes and male genitals but identify as a woman, let’s call me ‘Andrea’. However I am a cross-dresser and wear suits and ties and brogues, in this guise I am know as ‘Andrew’. Can ‘Andrew’ use the ladies toilet? When I do sport can I be recorded as ‘Andrea’ in the Womens’ results?

  4. “We have to go with our perception of reality, which does not mean males can’t play at or even become females and vice-a-versa.”

    This puzzling sentence in Belina Brown’s final paragraph, needs clarification.

    I suppose a man can play at being a woman – like a female impersonator – but he can never become one. Not even the most extensive surgery imaginable could ever make it possible for a man to conceive a baby.

    • That assumes sex is based on possession of physical organs. What happens after hysterectomy, do we stop being women?. Genetic chromosome pairing can vary, we`re not all the same, but those who are different are a tiny minority.

      • No it doesn’t. Because I didn’t refer to psychological differences, or chromosomes, or the activity of hormones, etc., you shouldn’t infer that I “reduce” the difference beween the sexes to the possession of physical organs.

        • What you stated was that a man could never become a woman because he could never have a baby, the obvious distinction being possession of a womb. There’s a lot more involved than being able to have a baby, the former is what I corrected.

          • I did not need to refer to the many significant differences between the sexes in order to make the fundamental point. Your “correction” was unnecessary and based on a false supposition.

    • A Lesbian friend of mine says men can be girls when they have debilitating periods. Apart from all the nonsense, we are what we were born to be, absolutely nothing the government in all its self imagined power and glory can do about it, and people will be people, just as they always have been.

      And here I always thought the Confederacy was a lost cause!

  5. Professor Peterson is opposed to the use of made-up pronouns such as “ze” and “per” and he is right to oppose such nonsense. However he has said that he would refer to a man dressed up as a woman as “she” and with this admission he is revealing that he has already capitulated to the PC agenda. Why is he not opposed to all this madness not just some of it? There are men who think they are parrots and dogs and women who think they are cats. Will nutty Canada soon make a law forcing its citizens to refer to such men as “birdy, birdy” and such women as “here kitty kitty?” Men who think they are women and women who think they are men are every bit as unhinged as men who think they are parrots and women who think they are cats, yet many in society and in the media refer to men dressed as women by female names thereby perpetuating the insanity. May God intervene to stop this global descent into madness.

    • I imagine he calls them ‘she’ or ‘he’ out of basic courtesy and manners for other people. As well as the respect for private life, “behind closed doors” and a disinterest in what people have between their legs.

    • There are a tiny tiny minority born with genetic abnormalities who don’t have xx or xy chromosomes, and at some point had a “sex” surgically assigned to them. Different to gay which seems to be influenced by a genetic type and level of hormones that a zygote develops in. The media however has blown this out of all proportion, and so now, like those who chase the x factor with no talent at all, we have the self doubters, the former tom boys or mummies boys, who are not quite sure, adding to gender confusion.

      • Funnily enough I have read the Canadian legislation and it seems that it isn’t really appropriate for the genuine intersex people. On the other hand through history there seem to have been women who have passed as men and not had their true identity discovered till they die. They seem to have managed without undergoing surgical procedures and I can’t help wondering if they were happier for it.

        • I’m not going to attempt an argument for or against corrective surgery, what I could put up with is probably different for somebody else. I guess kids are likely to see more of each other than they did a century or more ago, and maybe it`s a question of confidence too, and not feeding like a “monster” so parents/Doctors made those decisions for them, and may be there’s a sense of rebellion too in changing that decision. Either way, it shouldn’t be in the public arena.

  6. I just want to say to anyone reading this article to listen to Jordan Peterson’s vlog posts and articles. The story is shocking. This guy needs everyone’s support.

  7. Belinda, this is disturbing and I hope Prof Peterson gets some positive energy from your article and the comments here. Let’s hope he prevails.

  8. Just listened to Jordan Peterson’s youtube video “Professor against political correctness”, where he describes in some detail the appalling Canadian legislation that leaves no room for error in dealing with those who have “chosen” their gender. It is deeply disturbing that normal people are coerced by law to indulge the delusions of those with gender dysphoria. It is a kind of state-enforced insanity. One can only hope for a cultural revolt in that country which has frankly been one of the biggest cheerleaders of cultural marxism and all the toxic baggage that comes with it.

  9. He is indeed a courageous man for his stance. He risks losing a lot.
    Compare this to the virtue signallers of the left who promise to leave the country when things don’t go their way and yet never seem to manage it.
    Peterson has what used to be called ‘moral fibre’

    • Indeed. You’d think the main concern of being a professor would be to educate your students, not to avoid prosecution for using the wrong pronoun or not providing trigger warnings. How can anyone teach properly when they have constantly worry about the “safe-space” of their snowflake students

  10. This is not about nature. It’s about behaviour. We are told that we should not make a moral judgment about LGBT lifestyles, because people don’t choose the desire. But they can make this argument only because they have already made a prior judgment about the moral acceptability of LGBT behaviour between adults. Because they think the behaviour that results from the desire is not problematic and they are willing to use the desire to justify the behaviour. It’s a transparent shell game.

Comments are closed.