A spectre is haunting the world, the spectre of gender-neutral pronouns. You can ignore the rise of the right-wing populist politics of Trump, Farage and Le Pen, everyone. The greatest threat to our right to free speech comes from those cultural Marxist loons trying to enforce political correctness on us. At least, that’s according to University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson, who’s caused quite a fuss by refusing to address transgendered students by using their preferred alternate pronouns (‘they’, ‘ze’, etc.). Mr. Peterson has suggested that gender-neutral pronouns, and other ‘attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory’, united under the umbrella of political correctness, are the initial thrusts in a massive Marxist offensive designed to deprive us of our freedom of speech, by preventing us from being deliberately and obstinately rude to each other. Presumably, at the end of the Cold War, the leaders of the Soviet Union, knowing the end was near, plotted to topple world capitalism by infiltrating Western universities with political correctness. This is just the beginning, warns Mr. Peterson, if we don’t act now, the regressive left will assimilate us like the sci-fi villains they are!
Taking a more serious approach, Canada’s House of Commons recently passed a bill (Bill C-16) to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which makes it illegal for the federal government to discriminate on the basis of gender identity and expression. Mr. Peterson’s argument is essentially that Bill C-16 and other forms of political correctness are attacks on freedom of speech. By not using gender-neutral pronouns when asked, Mr. Peterson fears that under the new law he’s in danger of being shipped off to the nearest gulag for re-education. Now, this would perhaps be a valid point if his fears were substantiated. They aren’t. Under Bill C-16, according to law professor at the University of Ottawa, Kyle Kirkup, “using an inappropriate pronoun […] would [n]ever result in a criminal conviction”. As mentioned earlier, the amendment only prohibits government entities from discriminating against transgendered people, along the same lines as it prohibits discrimination for reasons of race, gender, religion and sexual-orientation. It doesn’t affect private businesses (that is for the individual provinces within Canada to decide) or universities. His appeal to free speech doesn’t hold much weight, because he isn’t being targeted by the government. Private entities are perfectly able to ignore his opposition to political correctness on the grounds of free speech, because free speech is a right granted only by the government. Dr. Peterson is under no governmental threat if he keeps on refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns.
But that isn’t to say that his stance on the matter is correct. For some bizarre reason, gender-neutral pronouns have become a target for people tired of political correctness to rail against. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of visiting one of the many cesspools of the internet like the YouTube and the Daily Mail comment sections (I personally find the cathartic rage therapeutic), you’ve probably encountered some randomer banging on about how ‘they’ is always plural. Except, ‘random Daily Mail strawman’, ‘they’ isn’t always plural. ‘They’ has been used in the singular since the 1300s, and, even if it hadn’t been, it’d still be grammatically correct. Linguistics has moved away from the unscientific Victorian pretensions of prescriptivism, towards descriptivism. If a sufficient number of native English speakers intuitively understand the singular qualities of ‘they’, then, linguistically, the use of singular ‘they’ is correct. Under the previous logic, using ‘you’ in the singular instead of ‘thou’ would also be wrong. Obviously, most people don’t run around like they’re part of some Shakespearean troupe, so we have clear everyday evidence that plural pronouns can naturally become singular.
Mr. Peterson has said that he’s perfectly content with referring to transgendered staff and students by their preferred pronoun. That is, as long as these preferred pronouns happen to be ‘he’ or ‘she’. This suggests that he isn’t perhaps a complete bellend, but, in the words of his colleague, Dr. Lee Airton, “[he is] very publicly working through [his] own lack of familiarity or understanding of trans people’s otherwise fairly ordinary lives”. It’s a bit like if a professor offered to call you Michael or Mike, but your name happened to be James. It’s all very nice that you’re being offered a choice, but you don’t happen to identify with any of them. Except, it’s more serious than that, because this discrimination isn’t driven by eccentricity or forgetfulness. It’s driven by Dr. Peterson’s prejudice against trans people. By forcing his, some would argue outdated, perceptions of gender onto trans people, he is creating a hostile environment for them. I think everyone should be able to agree, no university professor should be willingly and consciously creating such an environment for their students and colleagues.
[Aidan Martin]
qmunicatemagazine.com 
But I have a feeling this will never get posted which just validates my point about censorship, and lack of communication due to the inability to come up with a counter argument of the far leftists.
“You can ignore the rise of the right-wing populist politics of Trump, Farage and Le Pen, everyone. The greatest threat to our right to free speech comes from those cultural Marxist loons trying to enforce political correctness on us. At least, that’s according to University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson”
Strawman argument. It’s easy to attack someone’s point of view when you misconstrued their point. Yes, he believes this pretentious political correctness move towards Marxism is bad for society and free speech. However, he never says that you can ignore the rise of the radical right. Exactly the opposite. He claims that the extremist repressive left movent is indirectly creating push back and anger on the right. The right is frustrated and lashing out at the politically left for lack of communication, censorship and having their freedom of expression suppressed.
“Mr. Peterson has suggested that gender-neutral pronouns, and other ‘attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory’, united under the umbrella of political correctness, are the initial thrusts in a massive Marxist offensive designed to deprive us of our freedom of speech, by preventing us from being deliberately and obstinately rude to each other.”
Never does he promote being “rude to each other”. You keep taking valid points, and adding your own vilified opinion of him to the end for misdirection. Him not saying the words you want to force him to say should not be illegal. You have the right to say the words you wish, and must live with the consequences if that is hate speech. But not saying those pronouns at all should not be illegal. The words you DO speak are you responsibility. NOT the words you DON’T.
He is not a fan of the ideologies that either of the extremes is bringing to the table in a more and more politically divided world. And is warning of the hate and dogma that both sides are showing towards each other. Clearly represented in this article.
It was the oppression of Germany post WW1 that let to the rise of Hitler. People were looking for a savior. The more radical the better. He is warning that oppression of free speech will unfortunately create a counter culture that is “deliberately and obstinately rude to each other.”
The author errs on key points:
1. Peterson’s refusal to use personal pronouns may not expose him to risk of criminal prosecution, however it does expose him to threat of prosecution under the Ontario Human Rights Code, with resultant risk of financial and professional ruin. It is serious.
2. Peterson has expressed violent distrust of what he calls the social justice warriors and the radical left. He expresses equal enmity for the authoritarian right. He has not, to my knowledge, expressed any negative feelings about trans people or other minority groups.