Peterson教授在多伦多日报上发表了一篇文章
答者快速粗略地翻译给大家，如果有翻译错误请大家友好指出，谢谢。
Why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns
--------------------------------
为什么我不使用“偏好”代词
在10月初，我录制了一组关于"政治正确"的视频，并将其发布在我的YouTube频道“Jordan Peterson Videos”上。
其中一项要求根据“加拿大人权法”和“刑法”制定“性别认同”和“性别表达”保护类别的最新立法措施。
这在网上和传统媒体中引发了一场风暴，特别是在学生组织的一次有关言论自由的Rally（公众集会）后，他们遇到了反抗者，他们试图用白噪声，呼喊“shame”以及最后的攻击和欺骗来终止这次活动。
大约有300万人在网上观看了这些活动的手机视频。
我在视频中指出，有关安大略省和其他几个省已经实施的类似法律的政策制定不当，十分危险并且含糊不清。我也指出，拒绝对那些不适合传统性别类别的人使用所谓的“偏好”代词（尽管我愿意根据自己的方式称呼某人为“他”或“她”介绍）。
我注意到，根据现在的联邦法案C-16的新规定，基于“性别认同”和“性别表达”的歧视现在不仅是非法的，而且是“仇恨犯罪”的一个特殊分类。
为什么这会是一个问题？
有太多的原因。
第一个是，C-16法案及其在省一级的姐妹法律是一种全新的立法形式。以前，限制本国公民“可以说”的法律限制已经实施，最着名的是规定“仇恨言论”的法律。我不是仇恨言论法律的粉丝。我认为“仇恨”不是那么容易界定，一个人的合理批评很容易成为另一个人的讨厌对话。
我也认为在在公开的环境中拥有仇恨者或批评者更好，因为，可以纠正性地反对，并且可以保持公众的关注。
无论如何，我反对的这项新法律使事态变得更加危险了。这是第一次，政府，由激进的左派社会正义战士建议，决定了我们“必须说”，而不是我们“不能说”的内容。我认为这是非常不明智的。我相信这严重限制了言论自由。
由于“言论自由”是我们制订问题的基本方法，讨论解决问题的办法以及达成自愿共识的机制，任何限制它的行为（特别是任何立法行为）一定是危险的。
我反对这样的要求，即我所说的话是由那些推动意识形态的人“制造产生”的，我对此深表不同意。我认为，作为“政治正确”浪潮先锋的“人为地制定词语”诸如所谓的“性别中立”的代词拥有干扰性的历史根源（与马克思主义的联系）以及我不信任的心理动机。
10月3日，多伦多大学给我写了一封信，警告我的行为具有潜在的非法性质，并提醒我自己对学生的义务，正如最近以平等为基础的政策所详述的。
10月18日，T的U给我发了另一封信，要求我不再谈论这样的事情。
事实上，我的讨论可能已经因为我反对的立法而变成非法，这正是我最初所作的观点。当我第一次制作视频时，很多律师声明类的文章即刻出现，指出我正在犯下联邦法案C-16中声明的内容。
但是，就我而言，多伦多大学的来信恰恰证明了我的观点是有根据的。为什么还要警告我，我的行为可能违反安大略人权法案？以及这么多的吓唬指控。
在我声明及他们的公开发声后，我也意识到另外两个原因，为什么C-16法案干扰了我，同时干扰每个人。
首先是request的不可靠性。我相信，当C-16号文件的制定者和安大略人权委员会的作者最初计划概念化“人称代词”的原则时，他们不知道两个性别会立即变成如现在超过30个性别在纽约市获得法律保护。
在Big Apple，现在已经成为了一种犯罪，如果“misgender”某人可处以高达25万美元的罚款。也许我们使用两个代词，他和她，可以扩展到2point1，或类似的东西。也许我们甚至可以学会使用“they”来指向这些有需求的人，因为他们不符合传统类别。
但是30个显然是不可能的 - 现在的列表包括比30还要多的所谓的“性别认同”。在安大略省，政府已经使它成为“仇恨犯罪”。我认为没有人像我一样发现了这一点。
第二个额外的原因是，我认为，是narcissism（自我陶醉）。几天前，我和我的妻子和儿子坐在一起，试图弄清楚为什么代词问题这样严重。难以想象。我之所以使用我使用的代词，因为其他人都这样做。这就是语言的工作原理。
突然之间让我思考为什么这样做（使用这些代词），而不是使用别的，我几乎说不出来原因。以前从未需要这种证据。因为这是使用习惯， 我们很难解释这些约定俗成的语言的演变和理由。但这里是我们想出了一个答案。
文明人以一种简单的方式来表现自己。这是因为我们每个人只有一个人 - 但是一个人被许多其他人包围。我们不可能与那个群众互动，甚至一对一，没有使我们每个人比我们更直接的公理。
例如，我与银行出纳员进行交流，我不想知道他或她的性倾向，医疗问题，财务问题和过去的创伤。为完成她的工作，她必须以相对无害的方式穿衣服，并以能够实现特定化，高效和较浅的交互方式呈现自己。这就是社会的运作方式。
我可能问她，“How is your day？”根据我的请求的真实性，她可能会分享一些个人信息。但是对于她能够（应该）揭示多少有关自己的个人信息，这里有非常严格的隐藏限制。
比如我班上的学生如果要求我学习说话并记住一整套（关于这个学生的）个人描述代号作为我们互动的先决条件，这显然非常不合理。要求我这样做肯定不合理 - 而且这项要求居然有法律效力，这就更不合理了。你不能控制我的演讲。
关于要求使用（他们）偏好的代词的不是关于平等、包容或尊重他人的问题。这是一只狼穿着绵羊的衣服。这是对语言结构的有目的的攻击。这是一种入侵自由言论的领域的危险方式。这是自恋的自我中心。它是PC疯狂的一部分，可能吞噬我们的文化。
一条线必须画在某个地方，这是一个绘制它的好地方（程度）。我们应该进一步废除安大略人权委员会及其执行机构 - 安大略人权法庭。我们应该拒绝第C-16号法案，我们应该在已经实例化的那些省份废除其姐妹立法。
我们应该毫不含糊地拒绝意识形态上拥有的我们说他们特殊语言的要求。或者我们应该等待后果， 那些并不会漂亮的后果。
Why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns）
In early October, I recorded a set of three videos about political correctness and posted them on my YouTube channel, Jordan Peterson Videos.
The first of these decried the latest legislative moves to make “gender identity” and “gender expression” protected categories under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
This set off a firestorm online and in the traditional media, particularly after a free-speech rally, organized by students, met with counter-protesters who tried to shut it down with white noise, chanted cries of “shame” and, finally, assault and deceit.
Perhaps three million people have watched the cellphone videos of these events online.
I noted in the videos that the policy statements surrounding similar laws already in place in Ontario and several other provinces were dangerously vague and ill-formulated. I also indicated my refusal to apply what have become known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).
I noted that under the new provisions of federal Bill C-16, now past second reading, discrimination for reasons of “gender identity” and “gender expression” has now become not only illegal, but part of the special category of hate crime.
Why exactly might that be a problem?
There are a plethora of reasons.
The first is that Bill C-16 and its sister laws at a provincial level constitute an entirely new form of legislation. In the past, legal restrictions limiting what citizens of this country can say have been put in place, most famously in laws regulating hate speech. I am not a fan of hate speech laws. I think that “hate” is not so easy to define, and that one man’s reasonable criticism can too easily become another man’s hated dialogue.
I also think it is better to have haters — or critics — up in the sunlight, so to speak, where corrective opposition can be generated, and public eye can be kept on their activities.
In any case, the new laws, to which I am objecting, take things one very dangerous step farther. For the first time, the government, advised by radical leftist social justice warriors, has decided what we must say, instead of what we can’t say. I believe this is extremely ill-advised. I believe it constitutes a serious restriction of free speech.
Since free speech is the mechanism by which we formulate problems, discuss their solution, and reach voluntary consensus, any act (particularly any legislative act) which constrains it is, at minimum, perilous.
I also objected to the requirement that I mouth words that have been produced by those pushing an ideology with which I strenuously and deeply disagree. I regard artificially formulated words such as the so-called “gender neutral” pronouns as part of the vanguard of a wave of political correctness which has historical roots that disturb me (the association with Marxism) and psychological motivations that I do not trust (based as they are on an excess of care best devoted to infants and grounded in an intense resentment of anyone who has become successful for any reason whatsoever).
On Oct. 3, the University of Toronto sent me a letter warning me about the potential illegality of my actions, and reminding me of my obligations to students as detailed in its own recent equity-based policies.
On Oct. 18, U of T sent me another letter requesting that I stop talking about such things.
The fact that my discussion may have already been rendered illegal by legislation of the type I was objecting to was precisely the point I had been originally making. When I first made the videos, several articles immediately appeared, penned by lawyers, stating that I was making too much of the dangers posed by federal Bill C-16 and its ilk.
However, as far as I am concerned, the letters from the University of Toronto indicated that my concerns were well-founded. Why else warn me that my actions potentially contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code? So much for the scare-mongering accusations.
In the aftermath of my comments, and their public criticism, I have also become aware of two other reasons why legislation such as Bill C-16 disturbs me — and should disturb everyone.
First is the sheer untenability of the request. I believe that when the formulators of Bill C-16 and the writers of the Ontario Human Rights Commission originally conceptualized the doctrine of “personal pronouns,” they had no idea that two genders would immediately mutate into, say, the more than 30 that now have legal protection in New York City.
In the Big Apple it is now a crime, punishable by fines of up to $250,000, to “misgender” someone. Perhaps our use of two pronouns, he and she, could be expanded to 2.1, or something like that. Perhaps we could even learn to use “they” to refer to persons who request it, because they do not fit well into the traditional categories.
But 30 is clearly impossible — and there are now lists that include many more so-called gender identities than 30. Thus, we appear to be in a position in Ontario where the government has made it a hate crime not to speak in an impossible manner. I don’t think anyone saw this coming.
The second additional reason is one, I think, of narcissism. A few days ago I was sitting with my wife and son trying to puzzle out exactly why the pronoun issues is so problematic. It’s not easy to think through. I use the pronouns I use because everyone else does. That’s how language works.
When suddenly put on the spot with regards to exactly why I do that, and not something else, I am rendered speechless. Justification of this sort has never been required previously. It’s convention, and it is not a simple manner to understand the evolution of or rationale for convention. But here’s what we came up with.
Civilized people present themselves in a manner that makes dealing with them simple. This is because each of us is only one person — but one person surrounded by a multitude of others. It is impossible for us to interact with that multitude, even one-on-one, without conventions that make each of us more straightforward than we are.
If I am interacting with a bank teller, for example, I do not want to know about his or her sexual proclivities, medical problems, financial issues, and past traumas. To do her job, she has to dress in a relatively innocuous manner, and present herself in way that enables particularized, efficient and relatively shallow interactions. That’s how society functions.
I might ask her, “How’s your day?” Depending on the genuineness of my request, she might share a bit of personal information. But there are strict implicit limits on how far she can (and should) go in revealing the person behind the persona.
It is simply not reasonable for a stranger — say, a student in one of my classes — to request that I learn, speak and remember a whole set of personal descriptors as a precondition for our interactions. It is certainly not reasonable to demand that I do so — and it is absolutely unreasonable for that demand to have been given the force of law. You don’t get to exercise control over my speech.
The demand for use of preferred pronouns is not an issue of equality, inclusion or respect for others. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a purposeful assault on the structure of language. It’s a dangerous incursion into the domain of free speech. It’s narcissistic self-centeredness. It’s part and parcel of the PC madness that threatens to engulf our culture.
A line must be drawn somewhere, and this is a good place to draw it. We should, further, abolish the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its enforcement wing, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. We should reject Bill C-16, and we should repeal its sister legislation in those provinces where it has already been instantiated.
We should refuse, in no uncertain terms, the demands by the ideologically possessed that we speak their special language. Or we should await the consequences, and they won’t be pretty.
— Peterson is a University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist
