After our Reverse Q&A at Brown University was cancelled, we decided to take the event to Portland‘s streets. This video was captured on May 11th, 2022 outside a Portland State University building that houses the department of social work. I was asking students a question about what it means for gender to be on a “spectrum.” Here’s what happened…
As a danish social worker, I am quite apalled about what I just witnessed in the clip.
It's my belief that the very essence of being a social worker, is the ability to have an honest conversation, to even function in the capacity of supporting a client. If people cannot exist in an emotional vulnerable conversation without getting triggered, this field is not for them.
Our educational system is not currently tainted with this ideology, but there are minor signs that it's starting to appear, and if what is portrayed in the clip happens over here as well, I am really worried for the citizens that will come into contact with a liscenced social worker of this kind.
Watching these videos reminds me of John McWhorter’s thesis in WOKE RACISM (paraphrasing): that anti-racism is religion to some people, and they can’t be reached, so it’s best to work around them. I think the same is true of those who are advocates and/or activists for transgender ideology. I appreciate what you’re trying to do and the point you’re trying to get these folks to understand, but they are resisting it with all their might. As Jonathan Haidt might observe, they are clearly well-meaning, bright people, who are using their intellect to rationalize that which they already believe, rather than — understanding that none of us is omniscient and therefore there is always more to learn — seeking the truth with curiosity and humility. I wonder if it might not be a better use of your finite time, energy and resources to reach out to the large majority of people who are reachable, in the hopes of getting them to engage constructively with people who have different perspectives on these issues. We really do need to have honest, adult conversations on these issues, but too many people are just trying to keep their heads down. As I think about it, I have seen in these videos that some students are part of the aforementioned majority and are willing to engage. If so, then perhaps another idea is to thank those, like the ones in this video, who have had their say and are sucking up all the oxygen, and then ask if anyone there has a different perspective. For example, you could ask if anyone there actually agrees with the statement that there are only two genders, invite anyone who steps forward to share their perspective and how they came to hold it, and challenge the others to listen with the curiosity they claim to have. Ultimately, I think you are doing really important work and I am grateful for it. The above are merely thoughts about how you might be more effective.
If Cis White men can’t speak on gender, homosexuality, etc. because of their being white/Cis does that also mean that gays aren’t able to have opinions or comment on say abortion? Also if so much of our society is held up by patriarchy or whiteness what does that leave racial minorities with, can they not hold opinions of or comment on economic policy since our economy is white supremacy?
Brilliant and hilarious. Thank you. The only hope for this generation raised on nonsense is mandatory year abroad in South America or Pakistan or China or Eastern Europe.
I've changed my entire approach to debating contentious issues thanks to Prof. Boghossian. The Socratic "questioning" approach is definitely the best way to help people see the flaws in their arguments and refine one's own arguments and understanding. I especially admire his patience and his use of 'tactical silence' to let people vent emotions and also provide material with which to ask the next question. The excuse for the silence is also brilliant. "I'm just processing what you said." Or: "I'm just listening because I want to make sure I give you all the time you need to make your point without interrupting you."
If I had one critique of this video, it would be that the professor missed a few opportunities to steer these folks into his game without them even knowing it. In other words, past a certain point, it may have been a tactical error to continue debating whether the game was appropriate and simply demonstrate it was appropriate by bring them into the game, using questions raised as the conversation went on.
For instance, the title of this post could have become a question. Several people asserted that words that can conceivably cause people emotional harm should be self-censored or banned. Once establishing this was an accurate restatement of the claim via questioning, Prof. Boghossian could have brought those folks into the game by asking: On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being absolute certainty, how confident are you that is the case? And then played the game from there, inviting them to allow him to ask questions that might move them off of their answer.
If done deftly, the angry group might not even have noticed they were playing the game until the professor grinned and said something like: "Or maybe you'd like to stand on this line now to show you have moved a bit?" Maybe he even could have gotten a laugh?
Anyway, I noticed several other claims were made that could have been used in this way. The professor ended up using one that was great: Is cursing at someone and flipping him off the best way to persuade people their words cause harm? If affirmed, that could have been put on a scale. The same goes for whether race or age (did you notice the implied "boomer" insult?) is relevant to conversations about gender identity. Or whether the presence of mental health professionals is necessary in order for certain groups of people to engage in a polite exchange of competing ideas. Or whether some sort of race, age or gender balancing should be required for conversations about a person's race, age or gender identity. So many good ones!
I don't see any harm in making a statement. If someone is offended by a statement, that is completely on them. It's their choice how to respond. It's completely legitimate to make statements and back them up. The group of social studies faculty and students said or did nothing to back up their assertions other than being offensive, insulting, assuming and disrespectful. Definitely not the way to understand other perspectives or let alone change other people's minds. Towards the end of the video, Peter states something amazing, which sums up the entire video, "Don't you want to facility social change?" The group basically answers yes, but never demonstrated anything to suggest this other than hostility toward anyone who has a different perspective.
If the gender binary is illegitimate because it was socially constructed how is “there are infinite genders” any more legit since it’s being socially constructed right in front of our faces?
Wow, that was really hard to listen to. The first time I watched it, I turned the sound off. Peter, your body language was the most open and non-judgmental I think have ever seen. Your patience with this group of people was impressive. Thank you for what you do.
Wow. This was an amazing video to witness. I am a PSU GSSW Graduate. I graduated in 1998. Back then, we did exactly this thought experiment all the time in class. I have been a Field Instructor for people who have internships with no MSW on site. It FLOORS me that this is not done in class any more. The institutional capture is real. It still galls me that you keep getting this form of insane pushback. Well, at least they came down from ON HIGH to speak to you, which is I guess is a step forward from anonymously dissing you on the VanGuard platform.
Just wow! You are so patient Peter!! I really wanted to watch the thought experiment. I thought it interesting when you offered to change the topic to “defund the police” they still wouldn’t participate. They couldn’t (or wouldn’t) answer any of your questions...
All of these interactions just remind me of my religious upbringing and non-religious adolescence in Utah. The same dynamics come to play with the religious group claiming the moral high ground and emphasizing all of the insightful things they have to share and not wanting anything from the side they are proselytizing to or confronting.
100% correct. What makes it sooooo much more galling (as in: bite my own face kind of galling) is that they are wholly unaware they are religious zealots. In fact, they would smugly scoff at the very idea of a strongly held belief built upon faith alone.
try this next time... since most campuses have zero issue with 'aggressing' against Jewish students - in the same way they are objecting to your statements - by making false statements (represented as true) about Israel that are highly antagonistic and which are well known to often serve as a 'call to action' for violence against Jews. The result creating unsafety for many Jews (regardless of where they may stand on Israeli politics). Antisemitic incidents FAR outweigh hate crimes against ANY other group, including black and LGBT groups (check federal statistics on this if you don't believe me) yet anti israel and even unadorned anti jewish propoganda is fair game and enthusiastically pursued on campuses. They use much more aggressive tactics than you are using here... but doing the same thing. Yet that is OK? Pose that to the people claiming you are making people feel unsafe by what you are doing.. ask them if it's ok to make Jewish students unsafe... because they don't seem to have any problem with that.
(and yes, this is considered very much an element of most Jews' identities in the same way gender activists make the claim about gender identity. Jerusalem is understood as our indigenous home.. and a Jewish state being vital to the safety of the Jewish people)
All I keep thinking while watching this is "how are we EVER going to deprogram an ENTIRE generation (or two) from this cult?" The astonishing certainty, the total lack of reflection, the complete confidence in being among the 'Chosen' Group...they deflect any attempt at thought by invoking 'harm.' It's horrifying.
These poor kids are going to suffer a limited life experience. I fear they are actually doomed to live in their mental bubble to the day they die. But there is hope I guess. Maybe when they get bored they will search for true meanings
They'll doom themselves, yes, but I'm also concerned they'll bring the rest of us down with them. The body language of that encounter seemed like it was only a few degrees removed from a legit, Maoist Struggle Session.
As a danish social worker, I am quite apalled about what I just witnessed in the clip.
It's my belief that the very essence of being a social worker, is the ability to have an honest conversation, to even function in the capacity of supporting a client. If people cannot exist in an emotional vulnerable conversation without getting triggered, this field is not for them.
Our educational system is not currently tainted with this ideology, but there are minor signs that it's starting to appear, and if what is portrayed in the clip happens over here as well, I am really worried for the citizens that will come into contact with a liscenced social worker of this kind.
Watching these videos reminds me of John McWhorter’s thesis in WOKE RACISM (paraphrasing): that anti-racism is religion to some people, and they can’t be reached, so it’s best to work around them. I think the same is true of those who are advocates and/or activists for transgender ideology. I appreciate what you’re trying to do and the point you’re trying to get these folks to understand, but they are resisting it with all their might. As Jonathan Haidt might observe, they are clearly well-meaning, bright people, who are using their intellect to rationalize that which they already believe, rather than — understanding that none of us is omniscient and therefore there is always more to learn — seeking the truth with curiosity and humility. I wonder if it might not be a better use of your finite time, energy and resources to reach out to the large majority of people who are reachable, in the hopes of getting them to engage constructively with people who have different perspectives on these issues. We really do need to have honest, adult conversations on these issues, but too many people are just trying to keep their heads down. As I think about it, I have seen in these videos that some students are part of the aforementioned majority and are willing to engage. If so, then perhaps another idea is to thank those, like the ones in this video, who have had their say and are sucking up all the oxygen, and then ask if anyone there has a different perspective. For example, you could ask if anyone there actually agrees with the statement that there are only two genders, invite anyone who steps forward to share their perspective and how they came to hold it, and challenge the others to listen with the curiosity they claim to have. Ultimately, I think you are doing really important work and I am grateful for it. The above are merely thoughts about how you might be more effective.
If Cis White men can’t speak on gender, homosexuality, etc. because of their being white/Cis does that also mean that gays aren’t able to have opinions or comment on say abortion? Also if so much of our society is held up by patriarchy or whiteness what does that leave racial minorities with, can they not hold opinions of or comment on economic policy since our economy is white supremacy?
Wow this was really difficult to watch... I don’t know how you kept it together but I’m glad it wasn’t me doing it because I am not the one !!!
Brilliant and hilarious. Thank you. The only hope for this generation raised on nonsense is mandatory year abroad in South America or Pakistan or China or Eastern Europe.
I've changed my entire approach to debating contentious issues thanks to Prof. Boghossian. The Socratic "questioning" approach is definitely the best way to help people see the flaws in their arguments and refine one's own arguments and understanding. I especially admire his patience and his use of 'tactical silence' to let people vent emotions and also provide material with which to ask the next question. The excuse for the silence is also brilliant. "I'm just processing what you said." Or: "I'm just listening because I want to make sure I give you all the time you need to make your point without interrupting you."
If I had one critique of this video, it would be that the professor missed a few opportunities to steer these folks into his game without them even knowing it. In other words, past a certain point, it may have been a tactical error to continue debating whether the game was appropriate and simply demonstrate it was appropriate by bring them into the game, using questions raised as the conversation went on.
For instance, the title of this post could have become a question. Several people asserted that words that can conceivably cause people emotional harm should be self-censored or banned. Once establishing this was an accurate restatement of the claim via questioning, Prof. Boghossian could have brought those folks into the game by asking: On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being absolute certainty, how confident are you that is the case? And then played the game from there, inviting them to allow him to ask questions that might move them off of their answer.
If done deftly, the angry group might not even have noticed they were playing the game until the professor grinned and said something like: "Or maybe you'd like to stand on this line now to show you have moved a bit?" Maybe he even could have gotten a laugh?
Anyway, I noticed several other claims were made that could have been used in this way. The professor ended up using one that was great: Is cursing at someone and flipping him off the best way to persuade people their words cause harm? If affirmed, that could have been put on a scale. The same goes for whether race or age (did you notice the implied "boomer" insult?) is relevant to conversations about gender identity. Or whether the presence of mental health professionals is necessary in order for certain groups of people to engage in a polite exchange of competing ideas. Or whether some sort of race, age or gender balancing should be required for conversations about a person's race, age or gender identity. So many good ones!
I don't see any harm in making a statement. If someone is offended by a statement, that is completely on them. It's their choice how to respond. It's completely legitimate to make statements and back them up. The group of social studies faculty and students said or did nothing to back up their assertions other than being offensive, insulting, assuming and disrespectful. Definitely not the way to understand other perspectives or let alone change other people's minds. Towards the end of the video, Peter states something amazing, which sums up the entire video, "Don't you want to facility social change?" The group basically answers yes, but never demonstrated anything to suggest this other than hostility toward anyone who has a different perspective.
If the gender binary is illegitimate because it was socially constructed how is “there are infinite genders” any more legit since it’s being socially constructed right in front of our faces?
Wow, that was really hard to listen to. The first time I watched it, I turned the sound off. Peter, your body language was the most open and non-judgmental I think have ever seen. Your patience with this group of people was impressive. Thank you for what you do.
Wow. This was an amazing video to witness. I am a PSU GSSW Graduate. I graduated in 1998. Back then, we did exactly this thought experiment all the time in class. I have been a Field Instructor for people who have internships with no MSW on site. It FLOORS me that this is not done in class any more. The institutional capture is real. It still galls me that you keep getting this form of insane pushback. Well, at least they came down from ON HIGH to speak to you, which is I guess is a step forward from anonymously dissing you on the VanGuard platform.
Just wow! You are so patient Peter!! I really wanted to watch the thought experiment. I thought it interesting when you offered to change the topic to “defund the police” they still wouldn’t participate. They couldn’t (or wouldn’t) answer any of your questions...
All of these interactions just remind me of my religious upbringing and non-religious adolescence in Utah. The same dynamics come to play with the religious group claiming the moral high ground and emphasizing all of the insightful things they have to share and not wanting anything from the side they are proselytizing to or confronting.
100% correct. What makes it sooooo much more galling (as in: bite my own face kind of galling) is that they are wholly unaware they are religious zealots. In fact, they would smugly scoff at the very idea of a strongly held belief built upon faith alone.
"I have to explain this to my parents and other individuals who all have much more life experience and knowledge than me."
Five white men? Nice practicing racism.
try this next time... since most campuses have zero issue with 'aggressing' against Jewish students - in the same way they are objecting to your statements - by making false statements (represented as true) about Israel that are highly antagonistic and which are well known to often serve as a 'call to action' for violence against Jews. The result creating unsafety for many Jews (regardless of where they may stand on Israeli politics). Antisemitic incidents FAR outweigh hate crimes against ANY other group, including black and LGBT groups (check federal statistics on this if you don't believe me) yet anti israel and even unadorned anti jewish propoganda is fair game and enthusiastically pursued on campuses. They use much more aggressive tactics than you are using here... but doing the same thing. Yet that is OK? Pose that to the people claiming you are making people feel unsafe by what you are doing.. ask them if it's ok to make Jewish students unsafe... because they don't seem to have any problem with that.
(and yes, this is considered very much an element of most Jews' identities in the same way gender activists make the claim about gender identity. Jerusalem is understood as our indigenous home.. and a Jewish state being vital to the safety of the Jewish people)
here's a pretty representative description of what that looks like: https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/at-harvard-facts-are-for-losers?s=r
All I keep thinking while watching this is "how are we EVER going to deprogram an ENTIRE generation (or two) from this cult?" The astonishing certainty, the total lack of reflection, the complete confidence in being among the 'Chosen' Group...they deflect any attempt at thought by invoking 'harm.' It's horrifying.
It’s frightening isn’t it??
These poor kids are going to suffer a limited life experience. I fear they are actually doomed to live in their mental bubble to the day they die. But there is hope I guess. Maybe when they get bored they will search for true meanings
They'll doom themselves, yes, but I'm also concerned they'll bring the rest of us down with them. The body language of that encounter seemed like it was only a few degrees removed from a legit, Maoist Struggle Session.