Regarding pronouns, the best critique of Peterson’s assertions come from people familiar with the law and the institute Peterson was part of.
“Peterson has unfairly presented the laws. Fact: Nowhere in Bill-C16 [1] states that one must use certain pronouns. Actually Bill C-16 says nothing about language regulation at all, let alone strict regulation like how Peterson interprets that it implies. Bill C-16 proposes one thing, and one thing only: to add literally 4 words“gender identity or expression” to the existing Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, among existing protected groups such as religion and sexual orientation.”
And here’s a UofT staffer:
“I was working with university students during the period when Peterson was in open conflict with his colleagues and saw actual harm caused to students by his rhetoric and tactics.”
He is vastly overstating a letter from the University asking him to be polite after multiple complaints about his actively hostile interactions with students. He is vastly overstating the implications of the law. I have a pretty good idea why, and it’s not freedom of speech.
— — — — — — — — —
Regarding enforced monogamy, it was widely reported at the time as he made the comments to a New York Times reporter in an extended interview.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners. The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges”.
False statement, as domestic violence against women by their partners or other women in the household is endemic and a constant undercurrent. In fact, it’s the single biggest predictor of later mass killings, more than ideology. Monogamy doesn’t emerge because of violence against women, but because of the mutual benefits of joint efforts around procreation and raising children. Violence against women is an unfortunate reality for too many women.
“socially enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence”.
Same problem.
You can read his apologetics for his assertions at his blog, where he asserts that being quoted in his own words at length is “Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.”
https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/
As with his lobster analogy, his argument is poor, forced and ideologically biased, not empirically based.
Here’s another take from the same UofT staff member who has dealt the fallout of Peterson’s treatment of others personally: http://qr.ae/TUNcha
