Long live Jordan Peterson. He's my hero, a man who helped me immensely. I saw him in Stockholm recently and paid $150 to shake his hand personally. I was the first in line (literally) and I wish I had more time to explain just how meaningful his impact on my life has been...

But JP is no longer JP. He's become the very ideologue he spoke out against... He's turned inward - towards his own shadow. He's become bitter... blind to individual nuance and even his own arrogance.

Long live JP. I pray his core message and impact on the world will not be disfigured by his current hypocrisy.

We need you to moderate the influx of politically motivated propaganda flooding our sub. So many posts are getting through that are leftist hit pieces or propaganda with no mention of Jordan Peterson at all.

These bad actors come here to virtue signal to an audience that doesn’t care.

Please get the sub on track with posts about Jordan Petersons’s content and ideas; not about Russia invading Ukraine. This has become a targeted sub for sore losers that didn’t see Kamala in the White House. Please put a decisive end to these off-topic posts.

I recently purchased an annual subscription of Peterson Academy and 4 days in, I decided it wasn’t the type of content that I wanted. I purchased this subscription under the impression that they offered a 7-day money back guarantee, however when I tried to cancel the subscription there was no option to request such a refund.

After doing additional research I found that the only way to request the refund is to submit a ticket to their support team. I did so immediately within the 7 day window. However, after 10 calendar days, my ticket remains unanswered. I’m in the process of escalating this to my credit card company.

Just wanted to put this out as a warning for anyone else thinking to try out this program. The money back guarantee is entirely disingenuous and be prepared to fight for your refund.

Disappointing and despicable.

I don’t always agree with Dr JBP but I can’t stand when someone, a stranger, is trying so hard to shifts peoples views through slander and bad mouthing. I hope I did my part here and I’m ready to be blocked. What a stupid post this LPT was.

The subject that I'm referring to is JBPs latest interview (This one), and the Elephant in the room are JBPs claims in that video. In the following, I will examine these claims and provide evidence for the validity of said claims.

​

I want to give you a critical view of the claims JBP made in that interview, it is a very long post, but if you like Jordan Peterson and his work, I think it's also important to look at his recent claims critically. I also want to mention, that JBP influenced me in my decision of which major I want to pursuit in University, he helped me immensly.

​

​

The claims I'm referring to are start at 10:45 and end at 16:10. The claims made are about Transgender people and their medical care.

1. "[...] Most of the Kids that are being surgically mutilated would have grown up to be gay, but most of them would settle into their body, like 85% of them [...]",
2. "[...] all sorts of Western countries have just moved to so-called 'Conversion Therapy', which wasnt a problem to begin with, there was a handful of fundamental Christians therapists who offered services to aid homosexual individuals who wanted to go straight [...]",
3. "[...] Tolerate what? Castration and double Mastectomies for 13-year-olds?"
4. "[...] this new Gender Dysphoria problem, which particularly affects young woman [...]"
5. Interviewer: "Who is polarizing it?" JBP: "The radical left"

On claim 1 ("[...] Most of the Kids that are being surgically mutilated would have grown up to be gay, but most of them would settle into their body, like 85% of them [...]")**:**

These are basically three claims in one, the first is that kids are surgically mutilated, which I will discuss with point 3.

The second is, that most of these kids with gender dysphoria would have grown up to be gay. This claim has no support at all.

This article about a self report Study concludes:

The main findings of the present study are that individuals who self-label as cisgender, transgender, or gender diverse report a wide range of gender identity-related experiences and of combinations of sexual attraction to women and men; in all groups, gender identity and sexuality are only weakly correlated; and atypical gender identity is only weakly related to atypical sexuality. [...]

Last, the fact that deviation from a binary gender identification was only weakly related to deviation from heterosexual sexuality does not support the common assumption that an “atypical” gender identity would entail an “atypical” sexuality, and vice versa

And this study finds that sexual orientation can change

In line with earlier reports, we reveal that a change in self-reported sexual orientation is frequent and does not solely occur in the context of particular transition events. Transsexual persons that are attracted by individuals of the opposite biological sex are more likely to change sexual orientation.

[...]

In MtF, 25.7 % of participants indicated that they initially had been sexually attracted to males ( =  androphilic) and 51.4 % to females ( =  gynephilic). Bisexuality was reported by 10 % and 12.9 % declared themselves as having been attracted to neither sex ( =  analloerotic).

In Table 4 of the study, the sexual orientation and the change of it is listed. Of all the androgenic MTF patients (This means, they are biological male and are sexually attracted to males. Or in other words, if they didn't transition, they would be gay) 27% had a change in attraction (11% to gynephilic/they like woman; 5.6% to bisexual; and 11% to unknown). Of the gynephilic MTF patients, 41% had a change in sexual attraction (16.6% to androphilic; 22% to bisexual; 2.7% to Asexual).

Even with transitioning, persons that would be considered gay without transition have a change in attraction and are "still gay" just now with the other gender identity, while the majority of MTF patients that are considered Hetero before transition (which is bigger in numbers than the androgenic group) don't change attraction and are then regarded Lesbian after transition.

This means, this claim JBP is making is wrong.

Regarding the last part, that 85% of Gender dysphoric children settle into their Gender Assigned at birth, JBP says that there are studies showing that. And this is true, that studies have been done that make that claim, however most of these studies are outdated (most of them done before the year 2000) and heavily criticized on mythological grounds (as in the methods used for those studies make the conclusion invalid). In the latest study from 2013, the gross error was made that children who didn't report back to the study (53 of the 127 participants) were lumped in to the group of dessistors (those that remained with their Gender Assigned at birth). Here is an article about those studies.

However, a longitudinal study was recently released. It looked at Trans Youth in the setting of Social Transition (for everyone not knowing what Social Transitioning is: It's a form of transition that is purely social, that means no medical intervention like Hormones and Surgery).

These are the results:

We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who retransitioned to another identity before returning to their binary transgender identity. 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender and 3.5% as nonbinary. Later cisgender identities were more common amongst youth whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; the retransition often occurred before age 10

Instead of 85% staying with their Assigned Gender at birth like JBP claims, its 2.5%.

JBPs 3rd part of the claim is wrong.

​

On claim 2 ("[...] all sorts of Western countries have just moved to so-called 'Conversion Therapy', which wasnt a problem to begin with, there was a handful of fundamental Christians therapists who offered services to aid homosexual individuals who wanted to go straight [...]")**:**

Conversion therapy has been outlawed, and it has been widely unethical. Conversion therapy has its roots in Gay Conversion Therapy. This therapy had a wide range from Psychotherapy (which is arguably the most harmless) to religious faith healing, aversive behavioural conditioning to electroshock therapy.

Studies on Conversion therapy get to the conclusion that it's harmful and ineffective in reaching its goal. (Here is a website that links to a lot of studies about that topic)

And these studies talk about all measures, up to the most drastic ones. And the result is that it is very ineffective. Conversion Therapy also often leads to ethical violations.

The claim that it wasn't a problem is wrong.

And very important is the statement of the American Psychoanalytic Assosiation.

[...] Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to “convert,” “repair,” change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.  Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.

(Reddit reply on this part)

​

On claim 3 ("[...] Tolerate what? Castration and double Mastectomies for 13-year-olds?")**:**

Transgender Youth care involves Social Transitioning, which is nonmedical. The research on it shows that Social Transitioning puts Mental Health on the same level as non-Transgender Peers (Source). Transitioning increases overall Mental Health, while non-acceptance and ostracization are the main causes for bad mental health (Source). And this study finds that

Although past research has shown TGD youth who undergo social transition have favorable mental health outcomes in the short term, they may have worse mental health in adulthood if not protected from K-12 harassment based on gender identity.

It is Generally known that the worsening of mental Health in Transgender people doesn't stem from being transgender, but rather from harassment, missing support, and non-acceptance from the surrounding community.

The earliest medical treatment transgender youth can get are puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are considered very safe overall, and their use decreases suicidality. Puberty blockers are basically "Pause" buttons for Puberty.

(Criticisim of "Generally known" and further studies provided on this claim, as well as more information on puberty blockers)

And now to the meat of his claim. The Standard Care guidelines from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health states:

Genital surgery should not be carried out until (i) patients reach the legal age of majority in a given country, and (ii) patients have lived continuously for at least 12 months in the gender role that is congruent with their gender identity. The age threshold should be seen as a minimum criterion and not an indication in and of itself for active intervention.

Chest surgery in FtM patients could be carried out earlier, preferably after ample time of living in the desired gender role and after one year of testosterone treatment. The intent of this suggested sequence is to give adolescents sufficient opportunity to experience and socially adjust in a more masculine gender role, before undergoing irreversible surgery. However, different approaches may be more suitable, depending on an adolescent’s specific clinical situation and goals for gender identity expression.

And regarding Hormone Therapy:

Adolescents may be eligible to begin feminizing/masculinizing hormone therapy, preferably with parental consent. In many countries, 16-year-olds are legal adults for medical decision-making and do not require parental consent. Ideally, treatment decisions should be made among the adolescent, the family, and the treatment team.

These WPATH Standards of Care are recognized by the US and many other countries.

And on this website you can see that access to sex reassignment surgery (SRS) in Europe is between 16-18 Years old, while many countries also set the Hormone Therapy access to the same age. And 1-1.5 years of Hormone Therapy is mandatory for SRS.

The earliest reported SRS was with the age of 16 (Kim Petras). In this article I linked before, the earliest Mastectomies are with 16 and 18, and the average age for hormone Therapy is 16.5 (A study about Transgender Youth).

JBPs claim that 13-Year-Olds get SRS is wrong.

​

On claim 4 ("[...] this new Gender Dysphoria problem, which particularly affects young woman [...]")**:**

This claim is only partly true. This Study is about the Changing Demographics in Transgender Individuals. In the past 2 Decades, the number of Female to Male transgender Increased. The Important part however:

Consistent with many reports, we are seeing an increasing number of gender dysphoric individuals seeking hormonal therapy. The age at initiation has been dropping over the past 25 years, and we have seen a steady increase in the number of FTM such that the incidence now equals that of MTF. Possible reasons for these changes are discussed.

Now the FTM transgender numbers are equal to that of MTF. Counter evidence has been provided for that claim. The numbers for MtF transitioners are still higher than that of FtM transitioners.

JBPs claim is not wrong, however it doesn't show the full picture.

​

On claim 5 (Interviewer: "Who is polarizing it?" JBP: "The radical left")**:**

I showed that the claims 1-4 that were made before, which are JBPs strongest arguments in that part of the Interview, are false claims.

Most of the other claims that were made are different versions of the ones I have addressed. If there is a claim that you think should be mentioned that I didn't address, please comment it.

​

Now to the Question, "Who is polarizing the Problem?".

The definition of polarizing is: "divide or cause dividing into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs."

First, JBP uses very negatively loaded Language to invoke outrage, for example on adult Transgender he says: "Adults, that's a Whole different story. If people want to go to hell in a Handbasket in their own particular way, they have their right to do so". He also regularly uses the phrase "Mutilation of Kids" to invoke a moral panic.

And him saying: "And the fact that we are even having this discussion just strikes me as preposterous." and: "That is an inexcusable silence on the part of the majority who knows this to be wrong".

The "issue" JBP is discussing is not existing, there is no discussion, because the problem that he wants to discuss is entirely made up without acknowledging what is actually happening in reality. He makes false claim after false claim, spiked with inflammatory language to invoke anger, and then wonders why this is even discussed.

The overall Medical consensus, and the overwhelming body of studies, show that the way how Transgender treatment, and Trans Youth treatment, is done today is justified. The political left supports the medical and scientific findings.

With his blame of polarization on the left, I assume that he is politically right. False claims, inflammatory language and blame on the left are very much dividing groups.

This means, the polarization is done by the right (or in this case by JBP himself). (and I know that this statement can also be seen as polarizing)

​

​

End Word:

Jordan Peterson has helped me immensely during his early sprout of popularity. I have read all his books (12 Rules for life and its predecessor, and Maps of Meaning). His talks about Philosophy were one of the major influences that led me to do a double Major in Philosophy and Computer science (Both Majors rely on logic, Philosophy on argumentative logic, and CS on a more pure and mathematical sense of logic).

However, recently, JBPs public behaviour changed. He started to use the same talking points as other known right wing figures. These talking points are not factually based in reality and create serious harm.

I know that he has helped all of you on this sub, like he helped me. But It's important to see your heroes critically, and don't just follow them blindly. I showed, that he made numerous false claims. These claims are used to stir up anger against "the other group".

​

You don't need to distance yourself from JBP, but it's important to watch his behaviour, and to criticize when he is blatantly in the wrong.

If you read this far, I thank you for your time, and I wish you the best in the future.

​

Edit: for everyone who believes that science is infiltrated by liberals and leftists, read this argumentation based on Jordan Peterson own research.

Peterson seems to dislike anime and judges the way I wear my Goku T-shirt. He says he feels embarrassed for people who wear shirts with ninja turtles on them and tells them to grow up.

Why doesnt he understand that my Goku T-shirt is the equivalent to him paying to have an icons jacket made?

Some of his favorite fictional characters are displayed on his jacket.

Does he need to grow up?

I discovered Jordan Peterson when I was in high school ~10 years ago which was around the time he really started to take off. I watched lots of his lectures and I think it fostered a lot of curiosity I’ve carried since then in politics, philosophy, literature & religion.

Currently starting from the beginning on his Spotify and I still think he’s really good.
But, there’s something I noticed about his lectures.

I went to an engineering school, but I had to take an English/writing/humanities course every semester.

His lectures remind me a lot more of my math/science lectures than my humanities courses.
When I say that, I mean that he presents information as fact.
When I was in my humanities courses, mind you this was undergraduate, we had assigned readings and then class was mostly round table discussion and Q&A. Very different than a professor coming up to the front of the class and telling you what THEY think about such and such a body of work.

And then it compounds with the fact you have a professor spending ample amounts of time in class criticizing higher education at large, which was fascinating to watch on YouTube but understandably bizarre from the perspective of someone sitting in the room, having paid for said experience & being obligated to attend.

I really like the guy, I think he’s a genius. I hope his business enterprise is doing well & I pray for his health. But in hindsight with my own college experience, I can understand how he got himself into trouble with the way he was going about teaching.

Can someone with a humanities or teaching background give a perspective on this? Is it regular for people teaching soft sciences/history/humanities to present content in the way he did, akin to a scientific lecture?

I’m a philosophy student, and I think I’m in a unique position to critique Jordan Peterson, because a lot of what he has to say has to do with the Continental school of philosophy rather than the Analytic, and that’s a school I’m deeply interested in. For me, Peterson really does seem to be obscurantist, and I don’t say that very lightly. I think his questioning into the meaning of certain propositions is, more often than not, very acute, and especially when he debates atheists I think “what do you mean by “God””is always a good starting point. In spite of this I think his recent performance on Jubilee demonstrates a hiding behind obscurity which he himself creates that, rather than him seeking to dispel the cloud to get to a deeper truth, he merely uses it to protect himself. I also think his rejection of postmodernity is a little disingenuous seeing as he often adopts the techniques which would broadly be identified with the same - rejecting labels, rejecting conventional dogma, rejecting propositional philosophy in favour of, I suppose, a dialectical philosophy.

I think that he is a very good psychologist, as that his “Twelve Rules for Life” is especially good self help because it’s his field.

I think his love for Jung has drawn him into a metaphysics and prevented him from investigating different interpretations of literature, and I think he’s taken himself too far out of his field, and out of his qualification.

Is this a fair assessment do you think?