Jordan Peterson Re-structured Thread

Due to a poorly-worded locked thread here:
​Jordan Peterson sentenced to “re-education” or face licence revocation - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board

The controversial Canadian clinical psychologist and professor known for conservative values and refusal to address the LGBTQ+ community by their preferred pronouns must take a course of social media sensitivity training lest he face a panel which can revoke his licence to practice medicine in Toronto.

Jordan Peterson - Wikipedia

Jordan Peterson | About (

Psychologists’ college silent on Jordan Peterson sanction (

Must Dr. Peterson believe and profess preferred pronouns, lest he face professional and social sanctions,
May he continue to question the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of others?

Please elaborate.

A person responsible for the mental well being of others must prioritize the mental well being of others over his political views?

Sounds perfect. Thank you for the fair and balanced rundown of the topic.

And when did you, @EnolaStraight, stop beating your wife?


I’d be pretty unhappy if I were referred for psychiatric aid and my doctor insisted on calling me by the wrong name and telling me that my identity isn’t real.

If he’s not willing to recognize the scientific consensus on gender then he shouldn’t be practicing medicine.

…given only these two options, well obviously, option 1. Can’t have any nuance in a “debate.”

Exactly. As I said in the other thread:

If he made a tweet that, for example, questioned the existence of trans people, then this would demonstrate that he is incapable of doing his job as a therapist, and a licensing organization would be INSANE to tarnish their own name by lending him legitimacy. It would be like a structural engineer ranting on Twitter about how gravity doesn’t exist, it’s just a conspiracy by woke people who don’t like tall buildings

Well, the answer to both is yes. If he is violating the ethical guidelines (and it certainly seems like he is) of the CPA, then he will face sanctions. He is, of course, completely free to question the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of others, but there may be professional and social consequences, which is entirely appropriate. The problem with Peterson is he wants to be a vile toxic person without anyone being able to call him out as a toxic vile person. Others do get to question his thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.

Nitpick: he’s a clinical psychologist not a doctor of medicine.

The re-education thing is creepy to me. They should have just canned him.

Clinical psychology is a field of medicine, isn’t it?

He isn’t being re-educated though. He’s being required to take a course on proper etiquette for CPA members on social media.

Don’t know about Ontario but at least everywhere I’ve lived a clinical psych may not practice “medicine” unless he has an MD or a DO and passes that license.

But anyway like I said it’s a nitpick, it still does not change that he needs to get with the program regarding his licensing authority’s requirements. (One thing I have observed anecdotally is that some professionals of that sociopolitical bent tend towards wanting professional licensing to be simply a set of tickboxes of qualifiers based on degree, experience, examination.)

I don’t see anything inappropriate with a medical board taking action against a member that is taking actions that actively harm patients. That’s what they are supposed to do.

If a therapist told depressed patients that they should stop taking medication, stop being lazy and stop feeling sorry for themselves I would expect their regulating board to take action.

If an oncologist told his patients not to take chemo because prayer and coffee enemas would cure their cancer, I’d expect the regulating board to take action.

A licensing board, much like an employer, can exert a certain amount of control over what you say and do at work, if you want to refer to yourself as a licensed therapist. If your personal beliefs are at odds with what the licensing board has determined to be appropriate therapy, you have the option of renouncing your license and misgendering patients as an unlicensed alternative therapist.

State licensing boards, be they cosmetology, medical, dental, car sales, whatever, all operate pretty much the same way and all use education along with fines as a way of addressing issues.

Yeah, it’s not really “re-education” it’s more along the lines of “take a mandatory sensitivity/diversity Continuing Ed class” as a requirement for keeping the license. As would happen with many other professionals that faced such complaints.

In any case at this point is he even an actively practicing Clinical Psychologist any more?

At the risk of opening a hoary can of worms, no.

I wish I had to to just one training course a year on DEI, sexual/occupational harassment, appropriate use of social media, counterintelligence and insider threats, et cetera. Lucky!

You’re completely missing the point here. This is just another way that Jordan Peterson can whinge about how he is being oppressed by the woke liberal masses in his reedy voice and obnoxious, doing-my-best-Christopher-Walken-impression-of-halting-speech while trying to lord over everyone else with his professed superior education in pop-neurosicence and sociology with a mix of reference to Greek philosophers. It’s all about the potential, not the reality.


Which is why the people the OP is quoting are using that term. The baggage of that term is intentional, and why I avoid any “news” organization that uses such obvious bias.

It’s rather common when a professional does says something bigoted or otherwise against ethical standards. The more usual term would be “sensitivity training,”

Okay, so I researched this a little more. Apparently Jordan Peterson is not only discriminatory, it’s that he intentionally misrepresents psychological concepts to give his bigotry a veneer of legitimacy.

That’s ultra shitty IMO, and a gross abuse of his professional authority. I doubt sensitivity training will help.

And in any event, he’s not being punished for what he believes. He’s being punished for what he does. Even if he thinks that someone’s preferred pronouns are nonsense, he could still just use them anyway, without infringing his right to believe that at all.