I thought there was an actual inconvenience, I actually assumed someone, somewhere in some kind of way was slighted. I was wrong for assuming that there was even something to the story, and should have read it for the absolute nothingburger it actually was! My bad!

Now please, tell me what went wrong.

Considering the article itself specifies that the person in question, who was unnamed, is listed on the university website as an instructor and not a professor I don't know how this would be a compelling piece of evidence that the institution supports this kind of anti intellectualism as much it's a sign that the caliber of applicant / compensation packages are so lacking that they were forced to fill the position with someone who has an unproven academic record. It's hard to say from the article what role the person in question was playing... were they leading a course? Were they acting as a TA? Hosting a seminar? Hard to say.

Also keep in mind this was published without a source in a newspaper that's not much above the national enquirer in terms of journalistic credibility. It's standard tabloid-fare. No sourcing, no way to go into more depth on the subject, just quicky articles that cater to people with short attention spans who want a story that paints the rest of society as incompetent so they can feel a little better about themselves.

Let's just recap here: You are complaining that people aren't taking Peterson seriously, and he has great academic credentials, which we should pay attention to.

But then you deny the thousands of study that show that institutional racism is a problem in American society? I'm sorry, but I don't think you really believe that academic credentials are important.

What argument is being made in that video? That left-wing authoritarians exist? Well, no ****. What else? Why can't you ever present an argument? If Peterson says that authoritarianism and low verbal cognitive ability correlate, that makes sense to me. How is that a "gotcha" for you? What argument from that video should I be worried about countering? I can't read your mind and somehow I doubt that your argument is that the liberals who post here have low verbal cognitive ability. So what is it? Spell it out.

Yeah I mean the procedures are different but exactly right. You don't get full credit if you don't use proper sources. Your source could even be right, but it could be something like Wikipedia, and not be allowed because it's not an academic source.

Yeah, we had a whole lecture on proper sources, and a fun discussion about why we weren't to cite wiki.

I'd like to re-ask: What is it that people are dying to say that "SJW"s won't allow? Still haven't heard any answer, let alone a good one.

You've obviously never seen the silencing and no-platforming of females who dare display and voice the knowledge that males are not women. Or been called 'transphobic' for noting that the "cotton ceiling" is rape culture being perpetuated by the males claiming womenhood.

The SJW's contributed to two women being tossed from a Canadian women's shelter very recently because they expressed concerns about a male being housed in their living area (the male, naturally, had claimed he was 'a woman'). The official reason cited was that their media interview breached 'a confidentiality agreement' yet they never named the MTT in the interview. They simply expressed their concerns for their safety...

So SJWs invented confidentiality agreements? Interesting.

People who gossip and rumor about other people's gender or sex maybe told to shut up on occasion. It happens. Deal with it.

Do you even cite bro?

the SJW's helped Obama turn my frog gay with chemicals

Knowing males are male is neither gossiping nor 'rumor'ing about someone. Females have a right to be concerned for our physical safety and to have spaces to which males are not entitled to enter.

But I guess actual females invented the bull****tery that is the ****shows like Dave "Danielle" Muscato (another male claiming lady-feelz and presently sucking up a bed in a shelter designed for females while also claiming some women have penises and if you don't like it you can suck his dick)...

And it is so typical of males to mansplain to females instead of embracing those gender non-conforming males into THEIR spaces. Instead, women get told to 'deal with it.'

The simple reality is that if one knows the basics of biology and that males are NOT female, one gets labeled as a TERF. The most recent wave of that followed the recent interviews where a British media person was sanctioned by BBC for having stated that a post-operative MTT was not a real woman. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39173398

Then you get the media claiming there is an uptick in female sex offenders but profiles YET ANOTHER male who claims/claimed he was a woman. The media has gotten to the point to where they are not even letting the public be told that the rapist piece of human excrement is not actually female. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/lif...sex-offenders/

If your going to tell people who they are based on you or somebody else, you are going to have to try harder- but it's not likely going change who anyone is but you. I tell people to deal with it, but only as a suggestion. I only lead the willing.

if Obama can turn frogs gay then it follows that he can use chemicals to alter peoples gender. Stop blaming the victims and turn your attention to the real enemy, the globalists

Sounds like a really awful idea to go out and give media interviews about actual people living in centres that are there because they need protection.

This is another case where it isn't actually anything the "SJWs" have done that's not ordinary. You have to be quiet about who's living where when it comes to shelters, who you talk to while you're living in one, and what you say about other residents. But you know that.

This is about you not recognising trans people as legitimate. Which isn't a random SJW point of view. It's in line with the prevailing views of psychology and neuroscience (i.e. a little bit beyond "basic biology" and even more compelling). If you have a problem here, it's with all those bad modern science guys, not this weird "SJW" class that you think invented confidentiality in women's shelters.

You seem to only care about mtf transgender. Anything to say about their ftm counterparts? Are they not allowed in areas where females are forbidden to enter?

Females tend not to have issues with other females in their midst...butch women have existed for generations. Given that the FTT's often tended to come out of the lesbian circles in the first place, that is why they were still welcome at MichFest <sniped>.

By "lost it" you mean it got boycotted, right?

Ah, so Wan Valdez' utubz didn't do it, eh? 1500 in and we don't have a working definition of a so-called SJW?

The question was about FTM transgendered entering typically male spaces.

If that's your concern, how many ciswomen have been harmed in female spaces by transwomen, and how much protection is achieved by banning transwomen from such spaces?