Even more obvious is that most Peterson critics have never read a single thing he wrote or listened firsthand to any of his long form podcasts, and rely on 3rd parties telling them what he said and meant, with no due diligence to determine if he is being portrayed honestly or not.

He is just a great example. There are others I could have cited but Peterson is the most public and has the most info out there. I don't understand why his research and years of experience as a psychologist would not be sufficient. I think it is more likely that his conclusions don't sit well with your feelings. That seems like more of a personal problem though. Wishing you all the best

I wouldn't describe it as either of those. To begin with, not every transgender person has gender dysphoria. Also, it's not a decision to present as a different gender, it's feeling free to express their true self. The language you use indicates that you don't believe transgender people exist as actually transgender. That's the whole reason this is actually important and should be celebrated.

Anyone can express themselves anyway they want. But expressing yourself through your hair and your clothes or what you choose to label yourself as isn't something worth celebrating. I don't care if "transgender people exist as transgender." I don't even know what that means, to be honest. If I meet a transgender person I won't treat them differently than anyone else.


Anyway, the point is Dylan Mulvaney is not a good example for the youth. Not because of his/her gender identity, but because he/she hasn't achieved anything notable in life other than creating a social media persona.

It would be a tautology, which explains why you're having trouble there.

It doesn't, and I've not seen anyone suggest that it does.

Not sure, why don't you let us know?

Sure, some might. And some may start. Either way, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to believe such a promotion could be a net benefit from a marketing standpoint. Will it be? No idea.



Nowhere, and I don't think anyone was suggesting it did.

This appears to be another version of the "I don't see colour, I'm colour blind" argument. And in an ideal world, it would work perfectly. But in a world where there is still racism, we can't simply pretend it goes away if we are colour blind. A similar principle applies here - while we still have so much transphobia, messages that help promote acceptance of "identity groups" remain important.

Not sure what this has to do with my post, but thanks for that. Are you thinking that this validates the idea that ""the whole trans thing is getting out of control"?

Rather than explain why it doesn't, I'll leave it with you to think about. Let me know if you need any help with it.

What I mean is that you don't disagree transgender people exist (like you don't doubt that Dylan is a real person), but I don't think you believe that transgender exists. Being trans is not choosing to present as a different gender as you put it. Firstly, it's not a choice. Secondly, they are not presenting as a different gender but instead of their actual gender.

Good for you for not treating them differently. But a lot of the country is not yet like that and so this is still important.

Being popular kind of is the only qualification you need to be a spokesperson as that's what helps you sell the product.

Congrats you figured it out

I feel like this is just semantics. I'm aware that something called "transgender" exists. I think it is a spectrum, encompassing people with certain physiological conditions, people with certain mental health conditions, people who consider living as their non-natal gender to be a choice, and people who do not see it as a choice.

I'm not saying Mulvaney shouldn't be spokesperson. If a brewery sees value in having him/her as their representative, that's their prerogative to hire him/her. All I'm saying is that he/she isn't a good example for the youth.

Dylan literally interviewed a sitting president, but okay.

FYI referring to a specific trans person as “he/she” is extremely disrespectful. Also kinda burying the lede in the last sentence there. This idea that trans people are not good “examples for the youth” touches into deep transphobic tropes about trans people being harmful to the youth in various ways.

Do better.

Lol. How do you think that came to be? Because of Dylan's fantastic skills as a journalist?

You're misrepresenting him. The argument is that making someone a spokesperson because they tick the correct identity boxes sets a bad example-- whether that's true or not idk but I suspect he's correct.

Probably because she has a large following on social media.

Notice the absence of worrying about the kids every other year of beer commercials, but the one day a noted trans person is visible on the trans day of visibility the pearl clutching about think about the kids starts.

Presumably the worry is about cis kids only.

JER error O

I'm aware that there are some people who are offended by Mulvaney's use of female pronouns, so I am using he/she to strike a balance and avoid offending anyone.

I didn't say all trans people were bad examples for youth, I'm only talking about this individual.

Joke is on you for trying to not offend the lads in this thread.

well, you failed. Your “balance” ends up being just as offensive, just as fundamentally denying of a trans persons identity, as if you had gone with the transphobes who refuse to use a trans persons pronouns. it’s a but like half calling someone the N word trying to split the difference racists and black people.

I have listened to a 2 hour long podcast with Peterson because I figure I should give him a chance. Idk if he was having an off day or had some history with the interviewer but there was just negative energy from him. Like he seemed pissed off the entire time, was being pedantic about trivial things that didn't matter to the discussion, and was only interested in airing grievances, mostly imagined.

This is such a bizarre and incorrect take, and it's not the first time I've seen it. I guess some people have gotten themselves so twisted in knots over "affirmative action" and "wokeness" that now they seem to think that any time a company makes an effort to reach a different demographic that's there's somehow something wrong with this..."too woke" or some such nonsense. As if this isn't something that's gone on for as long as advertising has been a thing. Companies have always, and will always, attempt to find ways to target specific markets. Not only is there nothing wrong with hiring someone to endorse your product based mainly on the fact that they "tick the correct identity boxes", it can be a smart marketing strategy.

If you've seen it multiple times now how bizarre could it really be?

this is a pretty good example of virtue signaling (by the hypothetical companies you describe). its also bullshit bc ticking boxes is in no way helpful to social justice.

so while reactionaries may primarily be upset about they ostensible message, they arent wrong that these entities are completely full of **** and cynically trying to take advantage of social trends. leftists ofc agree with the latter and further understand that usurping these movements is a great way to garner the benefits while neutering any chance of positive change. so that just leaves the liberals...

I totally disagree with the points made in this post. It's not about targeting a specific audience, it's about the ethics behind it. Just hiring someone because they fit into a certain demographic isn't cool. It's a form of tokenism and it goes against the idea of fairness and equal opportunity.

It's important for companies to focus on creating genuinely diverse and inclusive workplaces where everyone is valued for their individual talents and abilities. Instead of relying on superficial identity markers to appeal to certain demographics, they should be taking action to address issues like bias in hiring and promotion, and create an environment where everyone feels respected and included.

In short, while targeted marketing can be a good idea, hiring someone just because they "tick the correct identity boxes" isn't a smart move. It's important to create a diverse and inclusive environment that values everyone's unique experiences and perspectives.

I'm starting to wonder if we're all talking about the same thing here; perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Didn't this line of conversation start with a marketing arrangement between Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light? Sort of like when Poker Stars signs athletes and actors as sponsored pros, or countless other times when companies make arrangements with sponsors/spokespeople that are part of a demographic they'd like to grow or move into? It's fine if you consider that cynical, taking advantage, etc.; if that's the way you feel then I assume this is about the 567th time this kind of thing has bothered you. It just seems very strange to me to be singling this particular case out as a "bad example" when this sort of thing has been going on for decades.

Very. Just because something is repeated a few times doesn't change that.