Graduate Instructor Who Showed Gendered-Pronoun Debate to Class Is Basically Hitler, Says School

"It's dangerous to say that a topic is off the table just because it might be a little bit controversial," says the Wilfrid Laurier University student.



As Lindsey Shepherd was pleading her case before Wilfrid Laurier University faculty and staff, the 22-year-old Canadian grad student and teaching assistant seemed caught off guard by their demands. Her superiors weren't saying she couldn't show a televised debate over gender-neutral pronouns in the context of a classroom discussion on language—they just needed her to condemn one side of the debate first. To do otherwise, they said, was "like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos."

Shepherd neither endorsed nor decried either side of the TV Ontario showdown between controversial University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson and Nicholas Matte, a professor in the Waterloo University women's studies department. In the clip that Shepherd played for first-year communications students, Matte and Peterson argue over whether it's appropriate for professors to address students by pronouns other than "he" and "she"—something Peterson refuses to do.

The clip was shown in the context of a class discussion on how language shapes culture and how gender-specific pronouns have caused controversy. "I was not taking sides," Shepherd—who does not agree with Peterson's position—would later tell school authorities. "I was presenting both arguments."

After an anonymous student complaint was filed, Shepherd was called into a meeting with her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, another communications school professor, and the university's manager of gendered violence prevention and support. They claimed that Shepherd was "transphobic" and that she needed to keep her "problematic" views out of the classroom. Shepherd pushed back, insisting that she didn't share in Peterson's pronoun point-of-view but thought it was important not to bring her own views into the discussion.

"This is basically like playing—not to do the thing where everything is compared to Hitler—but this is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos from Gamergate," Rambukkana said in the meeting. "This is the kind of thing that, departmentally, in terms of critical communications studies, and in terms of the course, of what we're trying to do, is diametrically opposed to everything we've been talking about in the lectures."

In a Monday interview with CTV News, Shepherd said she was told "that you can't debate something like this because it causes an unsafe or toxic learning environment. I ended up being called transphobic and someone who causes harm and violence." Going forward, she would have to file all lesson plans in advance and expect random drop-in reviews, the tribunal told her.

Shepherd said she was speaking out because situations and attitudes like these hurt the core mission of college education. "I think it's dangerous to say that a topic is off the table just because it might be a little bit controversial," she told CTV.

When Shepherd first went public with her story in early November, the Ontario-based university was both dismissive and defensive. In an initial statement, Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy said that "as a responsible employer," the university is "obligated to abide by government regulations, human rights legislation and our own university policies"; "to this end," it had hired a third party "to gather the facts of the situation and assess them in a deliberate, fair and respectful manner."

The bizarre statement went on to suggest there are some ideas that may be worth discussing, but can't because of bureaucracy.

"I believe that as a university community we need to have more conversations about how academic expression happens throughout our institution," wrote MacLatchy. But "to be focused and constructive, these conversations should take place outside of the specific contexts that, for good reason, are often constrained by privacy legislation, employer regulations, and other legal requirements."

Shepherd was not impressed. "This was an opportunity for the university to be like 'it's true, we should be able to have a debate, we're sorry it became an issue and we're happy to foster debate in the university environment," she told The Star. "Instead, they're being weird about it."

She accused the university of subtly censoring her, "because it's not like they're banning me from the classroom, but they have now recognized me as someone who maybe thinks a little too independently for their tastes, so they have to discipline me into thinking the way they want me to think and the way they want me to transmit their message to the students."

Instead, she leaked an audio recording of her meeting with the seniors staffers, which she had secretly recorded. The recording was first published online by Global News and drew swift condemnation of the school throughout Canada's chattering classes.

In listening to the recording, "it's evident that there's a fundamental disagreement between [Shepherd] and her three superiors over the role of a university lecturer," notes Uri Harris at Quillette:

This becomes obvious as Shepherd goes to great lengths to assure them that she didn't take sides for or against Peterson or Matte and presented the debate neutrally. In fact, it eventually emerges that she disagrees with Peterson. It's quite evident that she takes pride in the fact that she was able to set aside her personal feelings and present the discussion neutrally. That, to her, is a university lecturer's duty.

After the recording was made public, the university president said an apology to Shepherd was in order. "The conversation I heard does not reflect the values and practices to which Laurier aspires. I am sorry it occurred in the way that it did and I regret the impact it had on Lindsay Shepherd."

Rambukkana also apologized. "This entire occasion and hearing from so many with passionate views on this issue from across the political spectrum has made me seriously rethink some of the positions I took in the meeting," he said.

NEXT: Is The TSA More Chill About Weed Than San Francisco?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos.”

    Because those two things are barely distinguishable.

    1. You know who else was like Milo Yiannopoulos?

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do…

        2. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link………


      1. Elton John?

      2. Paul Lynde?

      3. Sacha Baron Cohen?

      4. Ray Moore?

      5. Milo Minderbinder?

      6. As Milo falls into the category of people I don’t like to listen to but some people love, I’ll say Miley Cyrus.

      7. Roger Moore?

  2. This is a university! How dare you have an open mind here!

    1. In all fairness, if you have an open mind, best to keep it out of the gutter.

    2. If by open mind you mean open solely to a prescribed perspective and beliefs, universities are 100% for open mindedness.

  3. Also, make sure to secretly record all meetings or they won’t take you seriously.

    Ah, so this is why no one believes me about the Aliens talking to me.

    1. Oh, they believe you, they’re just gaslighting you and trying to drive you insane.

    2. Illegal aliens?

  4. I thought maybe something besides Net Neutrality debates would cheer me up. I was wrong.

  5. No one is mature enough to evaluate arguments and come to independent conclusions until they’ve reached tenure. A person’s brain before that time is simply too dumb and impressionable to separate fact from fiction, right from wrong, good from evil.

    1. “”No one is mature enough to evaluate arguments and come to independent conclusions until they’ve reached tenure”‘

      Well they might come to a conclusion not authorized by ruling class.

    2. Tenure isn’t really the issue. I’m sure the university’s “manager of gendered violence prevention and support” is also capable of properly distinguishing the right viewpoint from the wrong one. The important thing is to be a duly appointed institutional authority with the power to correct those who fail to endorse the correct position.

  6. But “to be focused and constructive, these conversations should take place outside of the specific contexts that, for good reason, are often constrained by privacy legislation, employer regulations, and other legal requirements.”

    For good reason. Value judgments are universal in Canuckistan, or should be.

  7. This article would carry more weight if it wasn’t written by someone who THIS WEEK advocated physical violence against those using the wrong gender pronoun.

      1. I require links to this entire episode as I do not follow on social media (WHERE I ASSUME ALL THIS TOOK PLACE) anyone but myself.

        1. Because it should be obvious to anyone that if it was posted on H&R, you clearly read it 30 seconds before it was posted. So it must not have happened on H&R.

          1. I only read my own comments anyway.

            1. I only read my own comments anyway.

              You do not.

        2. I had to look it up

          the original was deleted, but its in that thread.

          I also don’t really understand people who make a big act of defend some statement as perfectly sensible and “Okay” (to use Robby-ish lingo)…. yet delete it as though it wasn’t, really. “Make morally-superior pose while burying evidence of your failings”-sort of stuff.

          1. Deleting it means she knows she was wrong. But her ego won’t allow her to *admit* she was wrong, so the defences stay.

            1. Yes – the “clarifying” statement she followed up with was essentially putting blame on everyone else for their interpretation of her exact words

      2. Jokes hurt just as much as real arguments when you’re a snowflake, BUCS.

    1. Eh? ENB bashing the fash?

      1. Inappropriate euphemism!

    2. OK, here we are.

      Just to white-knight her a little, what if she’d said Shapiro should be fed to a woodchipper?

      1. Le sigh.

      2. I’ll play devil’s advocate a bit. Her comment was needlessly contentious and adds to the heightened tenseness of the environment without adding much to the discussion.

        1. Does this sound like debates on any comment board you’re familiar with?

          1. I only browse here and 4chan, so both of those basically have a “FUCK YOU YOU’RE A FUCKING SOCIALIST/NORMIE REEEEEE” vibe, so if so. I don’t know.

            1. BUCS is also a valued commenter on pornhub, where he shares helpful cooking tips and organizational hacks.

              1. I read about that and PornHub. That is a truly beautiful thing that is happening.

            2. I only browse here and 4chan

              Hhhmmmm …

              Mebbe you should try the Glibs …

        2. White knight versus devil’s advocate: who would win?

          1. Sounds like a debate I had with my friend, circa 1983, while playing D&D: “Could a lawful-good 9th-level paladin-cleric take on Demogorgon and win?”

            1. Which edition? ADnD or 2nd?

              1. If it’s 1983, then it was clearly the 1st edition.

                1. Huh, I did not realize that 2nd came out that late. I thought it was 81. Must be confusing original and ADnD split. Which happened in the late 70s I think.

            2. I mean, a devil’s advocate is just a lawyer. Maybe it’s Keanu Reeves, but we’re still talking pre-Matrix, pre-John Wick. The white knight may be a cuck, but he’s still a fucking knight, y’know? What chance does the advocate have?

              1. One time in college, we borrowed Devil’s Advocate on VHS from my neighbor. Little did we know the last 10 minutes was erased from the tape. We banged on her door at midnight, angry and demanding the ending.

          2. White Knight is motivated by passionate zeal — the White Knight chooses to fight their battle and wants to win. Devil’s Advocate is just playing a role, a stand-in for the lack of a real impassioned opponent. With this understanding the White Knight will always be more likely to win because they are more committed to the fight, and victory.

            1. That kind of deep analysis is why you are so respected around here.

              1. I’m just going to assume no sarc and say thank you.

            2. OTOH, the devil’s advocate isn’t likely to enter a fight where he doesn’t have a definitive advantage.

            1. So so many people’s nickname in college these days.

      3. I mean if someone wants to say mean things I strongly believe they have that right. Advocating violence isn’t the same as doing violence. That said, I hopelessly wish for a more peaceful world that will never come…

        1. AFAIK, neither Saying Mean Things(TM) nor (actually) advocating violence is at issue here.

        2. Ehhh…

          There’s that weird grey area of speech and abuse, and even the fighting words exception.

          Granted the pendulum may have swung a bit too far the other way, but even the free speech absolutist have their limits.

          Was that white knighting or devil’s advocate?

      4. Just to white-knight her a little, what if she’d said Shapiro should be fed to a woodchipper?

        In this hypothetical, is she still a professional journalist authoring a piece about overreactions to difference of opinions with regards to recognizing trans’ folks’ labeling preferences?

        If she wants to advocate political violence, that’s her decision. Just maybe don’t do it while being tied to the best known ostensibly Libertarian site and publication.

        1. I suppose she’s bad for the brand, unless the brand is “libertarians trying to ingratiate themselves with their natural enemies while showing contempt for their natural allies.”

          1. Wait wait wait. You still think conservatives are libertarians’ natural allies?


            1. I don’t see much in Russell Kirk’s 10 principles that a libertarian would be opposed to and much that would be admired. Find a proggie summation of their beliefs and most libertarians would tear it to shreds. YMMV, but that might be why so many LP candidates recently have come from the Republicans.

            2. Enemy of my enemy thing.

            3. Chemjeff, being typically obtuse:

              just because someone isn’t your natural enemy, doesn’t make them by default “an ally”.

              they’re simply “not an enemy”. Or less of one such that they’re not an immediate threat.

              Its not a binary either/or. the third thing can always be “neither”. Conservatives and libertarians aren’t allies in all things, but they disagree far less about some very important things, and most importantly – they do so for more or less the same reasons. Where they do disagree, in most cases they can agree to at least leave each other alone about it, regardless.

              what libertarians do agree with leftists about, by contrast, are generally for entirely different reasons; e.g. “getting the govt out of deciding who can/can’t get married” isn’t based on any political desire that homosexuality be given ‘special status’ – its simply consist belief that govt shouldn’t be involved in authorizing interpersonal relationships.

              the left wants “positive rights” for their favored victim-classes not because of any desire to reduce the grip of government over people’s lives, but exactly because they want *more of it*. Because they think special legal-carveouts for gays will given them MORE power to step on the throats of their cultural opponents.

              or look at how lefties “legalize” weed: by creating new ways to punish you for using it in the wrong place, or the wrong time, controlling every dimension – merely ‘decriminalizing’ gives them no new powers

              1. This is the core of how I always feel about this, the overlap with the left has been consequential, not philosophical. If there ever was Democrats that were actually liberal in the classical sense it’s been a good while.

                There are a handful of politicians that I find passable and they are all Rs, I can’t think of a D off the top of my head that isn’t looney toons.

                If anyone knows of any libertarian-ish Democrats please do share.

                1. You mean outside the usual Reason “The Libertarian Case for (insert democrat’s name here here)” article?

            4. Wait wait wait. You still think conservatives are libertarians’ natural allies?

              I find I agree with conservatives a lot more than with progressives. YMMV.

        2. It was fairly pathetic that her (unserious) call to violence was spurred by Shapiro simply seeing the trans debate differently than her. It’s unremarkable behaviour for much of Twitter but really bad form for a libertarian for whom tolerance is a crucial social virtue.

      5. What is Twitchy? Let me google that….oh, a conservative site started by concentration camp apologist Michelle Malkin?

        1. You mean the FDR apologist who blamed Reagan for signing the compensation bill for the victims?

          At least she’s easy on the eyes.

    3. No one else picked up on how ENB labeled Peterson controversial but not Matte? Matte says there is no such thing as biological sex… at the very least, either they are both controversial, or better yet, ENB could leave out her virtue signaling and just say it was a debate between Peterson & Matte.

      1. Apparently, I did not read far enough down.

  8. they just needed her to condemn one side of the debate first.

    No, they’re not teaching ideology. Totally overblown.

  9. Both C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley died on 11/22/63, barely noted because of what had happened in Dallas…

    1. And the series premiere of Doctor Who.

  10. The university has said that an independent party will look into how the situation was handled and to ensure that an “enriched learning environment” is preserved at the school in the future.

    But who can be independent of thought on a subject with so clear a correct side and an incorrect side?

    1. Mueller?

  11. Lindsey Shepherd, you are doing the Lord’s work.

    Alas, I fear progressivism must win out. All the children of America are indoctrinated in a system with one goal. As the strongest opponents of progressivism are older and come from a educational background that was more neutral, what replacements can we draw on to fill and hold the line? How can we not be overrun by censorious mobs?

    1. I worry about this myself… I’m 32, and most people my age are all fucked up with their politics/principles. When I’m old am I going to be living in a world where 110% of the insane progressive social/economic agenda has been enacted? Such a terrifying thought.

      Bright signs: Most younger people who aren’t commies tend to be more libertarian than say neo cons or whatever. But that may also bring a lot of social ills IMO. As I’ve got older I’ve come to realize that 70-90% of the stuff that bible thumpy conservatives are for is actually what is best for society overall, my only point of contention at this point is that it should not be enforced by the state, but that the “culture war” on certain issues just needs to be won over legitimately in hearts and minds. I don’t think weed is evil or that gays need to be murdered, but a lot of the lefty social agenda has destroyed society in huge ways… Which conveniently requires more state intervention to solve the problems they created!

      Another bright spot I guess is that the next generation coming up (Gen Z) seems to be more conservative/libertarian than mine in many ways. It’s probably the “My parents are faggy progs, so I ain’t gonna be that!” effect in action. I feel like they’re actually more socially conservative than libertarian, which seems weird, but in terms of balancing yin and yang I think we actually may need more of that right now… *Sigh* the world is pretty dicey, but gotta keep the fingers crossed I guess.

    2. I think the die was cast with the religious exemption. If you can make special allowances for religion, there is no end to how many other exemptions you can make.

      Progressivism is little more than taking the tactics of the moral right and putting them into new contexts. As I don’t see either side willing to give up the ground they’ve made, it will just be escalation to a standoff or worse- they find common ground for a more polite society.

  12. controversial University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson and Nicholas Matte

    Who’s the controversial one here, Jordan Peterson, or Matte… or both?

    Presuming it’s Jordan Peterson, it’s a bit shocking that such a reasonable and decent human being– and incredibly intelligent is considered ‘controversial’.

    1. Further, Nicholas Matte claimed, publicly that there are no biological differences between men and women, none at all, and he prefaced his statement by saying that he took Medical History classes. So I’m going to go with Matte being the controversial one.

      1. I am going to go with Matte being an illiterate retard.

        1. He’s the classic case of what Moynihan described: He may be intelligent, his brain seems to function, but it’s devoid of information. He also falsely accused Peterson of “abusing his students”. He’s a complete ideologue (he’s a ‘trans studies professor’). Great, more power to him, teach away. But he’s making falsifiable statements about the biology of men and women, across the whole spectrum of the population that are laughably wrong. If one wants to call Jordan Peterson controversial, that’s fair, because in this day and age, his views on resisting compelled speech and action are sadly, controversial. But Nicholas Matte is a complete fucking nutter– whose ‘controversy needle’ is planted so far into the red it’s off the scale.

      2. “”Nicholas Matte claimed, publicly that there are no biological differences between men and women, none at all, and he prefaced his statement by saying that he took Medical History classes”‘

        Well in the liberal left world, men have vaginas. So he might be on to something.

        1. No, in the liberal left world all men ACT like pussies. What they have is not significant (or useful).

      3. It’s fucking nuts how far these people will take things. I’m all for letting people live as the other sex if that makes them feel better and not being a dick about it. Even to modify their bodies if that’s what they want. But that doesn’t mean that actual facts don’t exist anymore.

        1. That is the problem Zeb. By taking it so far, they force you to be an asshole about it. I generally agree with you about people’s rights to think they are whatever they want to think. But these people can’t be satisfied with that. They want to use it as a weapon to force everyone to deny that actual facts exist.

          1. Spot on. I was always pretty much on board with gay rights etc until the last couple years. They basically achieved everything a reasonable person could want… So then they went over the deep end. And it’s beyond the point where I can smile and nod and accept their factually wrong and insane positions anymore. I live in the Peoples Republic Of Seattle (For now, getting out of here soon though!) and I don’t hold my tongue when stuff comes up in conversation because I actually have the facts on my side. I am very nice, and tell them I’ve had gay friends since high school in a small town, etc… But then I tell it like it is. I’m not going to be silenced by these lunatics anymore.

      4. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

        1. But you don’t have a womb!

      5. I can think of at least one glaring difference right below the waistline…

    2. Presuming it’s Jordan Peterson, it’s a bit shocking that such a reasonable and decent human being– and incredibly intelligent is considered ‘controversial’.

      Let’s not go crazy here.

      1. Well, he is a liberal with an openness for debate, a strong humanitarian streak, a serious scientific background and a grand historical perspective on the toll of human suffering. So, we probably ought to find out what he’s done for us lately.

        1. And he’s leaning a little too far into his new schtick.

          1. I would too if I spent my life seeking truth through scientific study and observation only to have your entire life upheaved by a bunch of shrieking looney full-grown babies who haven’t the humility to understand that their feelings are not objective reality.


    Some woman I have never heard of is accusing some man I have never heard of of rape.

    1. I believe that happens many times a day, all over the world. I would say most crimes are like that for me in fact.

    2. You beat me to it, that was going to be my sexual assault roundup, lunchtime edition.

      The most surprising angle of the story? A backstreet boy is straight.

      1. I know. First Al Franken, then Glenn Thrush and now a member of the Bad Street Boys turns out to like women. It is just unbelievable but apparently true.

    3. Damn, I actually read your link. I love the Backstreet Boys…

      1. Even if this turns out to be consensual, how can he stay in the band after he is publically outed as being straight?

        1. All it does is return hope to the loins of girls who were pre-teens in the 1998-2003 period.

          1. Every generation of teen girls throws a gay man up the pop charts. In my generation, it was George Michael. They never seem to learn.

            1. They’re not gonna fuck them anyway, might as well lust after a dude who has all the other qualities they want.

              1. That they SAY they want. Then they turn around and fuck the alpha male that they know will screw then over.

    4. Maybe I’m a bad man, but my thoughts on most of these allegations–with the exception of where the accused seems to admit guilt publicly–has been that this is ridiculous. How does one defend himself against allegations of rape/assault/harrassment that are 3 or 4 years old, let alone ones that are 15, 20, 30 or even 40 years in the past

      1. That seems to be a reasonable stance. There are some extenuating circumstances like Weinstein having legally documented harassment and rape all over his career. But in general it really is a hard problem.

        1. Hehehe…BUCS said “hard”!

    5. That’s impossible. Everybody knows members of teenage boy bands are all gay and wouldn’t go anywhere near pussy.

  14. First, good on Shepherd. She has integrity and principles. Unlike, Raddatz, Holtz and Crowley as we saw during various Presidential debates.


    “controversial University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson and Nicholas Matte, a professor in the Waterloo University women’s studies department.”

    I don’t see what’s *controversial* about Peterson – at all. That he’s considered as such says much about the times. I would considered Matte controversial.

    The biology and science of things sides with Peterson; echoed by Shapiro.

    The question is, is he punchable?

    1. I would considered Matte controversial.

      Anyone who has a couple of functioning brain cells clacking around in their brain would consider Matte the deeply controversial wrong. He’s a fucking biological flat-earther.

  15. “I think it’s dangerous to say that a topic is off the table just because it might be a little bit controversial”

    You’re wrong, people can be whatever sex they want, this isn’t even a little bit controversial, it’s just Science(TM).

    Would you call it “controversial” to say the earth orbits the Sun? Or that water is wet? Or that progressives are always good and conservatives always bad? These are truths of nature, not open to debate.


    1. (and when progressives are bad it’s because they are being conservative, like when a progressive suddenly turns conservative and starts mistreating women)

  16. This case was amazing. I watched the whole Agenda episode and I can’t believe that the administrators would put Shepard through this. Why are they trying to shield young people from hearing points of view that are very very common outside of the lecture halls? I always though that the best way to change minds was to present all sides and then allow students to critique them. How else will they be prepared to argue with their uncle at Thanksgiving? What’s flabbergasting about this case is that his opinion was hardly mainstream. There was even a transsexual women on the show who agreed with him. In fact, I would put him well to the left of most Trump voters. That is what is so sad about this case. The left is ripping itself a part and creating a vacuum for the idiots to walk into and take power. They win some battles but lose the larger war.

    1. Brendan O’Neill: Censorship makes you dumber.

    2. “I always though that the best way to change minds was to present all sides and then allow students to critique them.”

      In the case of the ultra-progs, that is too risky, and unnecessary when you can simply make it illegal to advocate for the other side.

      On some level, they may recognize that allowing a full debate may lead to some undecided students becoming wrongthinkers. Whereas these same undecided students could be made into rightthinkers simply by telling them the correct position, and making clear that they aren’t allowed to hold other positions.

  17. Shepherd said she was speaking out because situations and attitudes like these hurt the core mission of college education. “I think it’s dangerous to say that a topic is off the table just because it might be a little bit controversial,” she told CTV.

    This chick is literally worse than Hitler.

    1. Much, much worse. Hitler knew how to prevent unfortunate speech and stop it before it happened.

    1. Just think what the murder and or enslavement of a billion people did for humanity!! They meant well Paul and that is what is important.

    2. Labour Youth?

      You know who else had a Youth….

      1. P.O.D.?

      2. Sonic…

      3. The Turks?

  18. “that you can’t debate something like this because it causes an unsafe or toxic learning environment. I ended up being called transphobic and someone who causes harm and violence.”

    That’s essentially what Matte has claimed about Jordan Peterson. That even mentioning (let alone teaching) the existence of biological differences is transphobic and abusive to his students.

  19. I wouldn’t care so much about this if it were entirely optional for students to be exposed to gender studies and other prog nonsense at university and this was only happening at places like Reed, Smith, etc…but the whackos now seem to be everywhere.

    1. Yup. I think that’s basically how it all started, and because it went unchecked it has spread its crazy to everywhere. Like cancer.

  20. The last 3 minutes of this conversation is kinda terrifying. Actually, the whole talk is really intimidating when you really break it down. The word smithing done by this girls superiors to essentially move the conversation around to “this guy is bad, because climate change!” I personally have no patience or time for that kind of discussion, but I do feel pity for this woman.

  21. Can I just say that the linked article on Peterson would best be described as “horseshit”.

  22. whether it’s appropriate for professors to address students by pronouns other than “he” and “she”

    Who addresses a person using “he” or “she”? I generally use “you” when I am addressing someone.

    1. That is a very good point, Zeb. I hadn’t thought of it that way. How is this even an issue unless someone is just making it one for the sake of humiliating and exerting power over people?

      1. I have a friend that applies you as plural versus singular to conversations in obvious wrong contexts just so she can be offended.

        I’ve decided that “Not the correct you, but if the shoe fits” is an appropriate response

    2. I’ve noticed I use they a lot in my normal speech.

      “I was talking to my friend and they said there was going to be a party tonight.”

    3. Third person while you’re present. Inn the video that made Jordan Peterson famous, he was attempting to engage a trans activist on her accusation that Peterson was a Nazi. Some other guy kept yelling questions at him, and he turned to the make student and said, “would you please let me talk to her? “. She angrily responded, “don’t call me that!”

      In Canada, that’s now a fine and/or jail.

      1. Do we know if that has actually been enforced? That feels like that would obviously lead to a court challenge. But I don’t know enough about The Land of John Candy to know how their legal system works.

        1. It will be. It will take time for activists to engineer a confrontation that will be actionable. I don’t know of any enforcement action yet– the law is very new.

          Oh, language game, unpack this sentence for me:

          Indeed, Bill C-16 helps to redress incomplete protections for some of the most vulnerable women in Canadian society today: transgender women

          1. Some of the most vulnerable women in Canadian society today*

            *That are actually privileged males! I mean only men would feel soooo self important that they could declare themselves to be another biological sex and expect everybody else to just blindly accept it! LOL

  23. Reason #3,157 for majoring in engineering.

    1. I thought it was not to have to talk to girls?

      1. Oh man, girls are way too scary.

        1. They are nowadays! I’ve half joked (half serious) that I wish I was gay in recent years! Gay men still seem so much less touchy and crazy… But they do have penises, which is a maaajor turnoff for me. *sigh* I guess I just have to accept that I’m a cis gender heterosexual white male.

  24. they just needed her to condemn one side of the debate first.

    I’ll go ’em one better — I’ll condemn *both* sides. Now, show the fucking debate!

  25. The university is committed to fostering a learning environment that is open and challenging but also welcoming and supportive of all students.

    Well, there’s your mistake.

    1. What if she menstruates all over some important papers?

  26. Where’s Zap Rowsdower when you need him, eh?

    1. Liberating Canada from the forces of darkness? Also drinking beer.

  27. Her superiors weren’t saying she couldn’t show a televised debate over gender-neutral pronouns in the context of a classroom discussion on language?they just needed her to condemn one side of the debate first.

    To be sure, this is something only Politically-Correct universities do.

  28. Rambukkana sounds like a bit of cunt. Oops, did I just misgender it?


  29. This is the stupidest argument ever put forth by an supposed institution of higher learning. 1- The purpose of a college or university is to broaden student’s perspectives and introduce them to new ideas, not to confirm their biases or make them comfortable. 2-If the instructor takes a side in a classroom debate, there is no point in having it, Debates are exchanges of ideas and opinions-one would hope, supported by facts. They are nor exercises in repeating received wisdom. Objections to course content should be confined to their relevance to the subject and only that relevance. Students should not be encouraged or allowed to object to valid topics just because they don’t like the presentation or would rather not discuss the topic. The course was studying appropriate pronoun usage, not the content. If the speech made the student feel unsafe- perhaps that student needs to take a sabbatical and grow up. Life is often uncomfortable and there is no justification for censuring the instructor.

  30. She is like Hitler in one way. Hitler never got a degree from this university, and I guarantee neither will she.

    Whatever apologetic noises they’re making now, the president, propaganda minister, and her thesis advisor are not going to allow a grad student who defies orders and tapes conversations get away with it. You think mafia dons are vindictive, you’ve never dealt with university officials.

    1. There’s a quote that I thought was from Kissinger, but I’ve been told recently that it was a misattribution. Too bad for that Machiavellian son of a bitch, it would have been the most astute thing he ever said. The quote was: “The reason academic politics are so vicious is that the stakes are so small.”


  31. “…manager of gendered violence prevention and support”

    I’m confused, so they both prevent and support gendered violence? How does one manage that?

  32. I don’t have a problem with a university taking a side in a debate. Boston College and Notre Dame don’t have to treat the validity of Catholicism neutrally.

    1. The difference is they’d allow someone to demean and ridicule it to their hearts content.

  33. So, after reading about the SJWs going apeshit over Jordan B. Peterson, I looked him up on YouTube. The man’s got some very interesting perspectives on human behavior. Highly recommended.


    1. Absolutely. They are trying to create lies to smokescreen people from reading or listening to his arguments. As a Canadian, the remarks he has made regarding the tyrannical legislation are so incredibly accurate as to what the SJW/elite’s gameplan is.

    2. Clean your room!

  34. A silly debate. I would not waste my time debating or even talking to someone so ignorant he or she would argue that to address someone other than he or she is sensible. In fact, it is crazy. Ms. Shepherd was wasting her time and the school was too.

  35. There are numerous interesting things happening in Canada. Please take this asan opportunity to see first hand experience as to what kind of illideral shenanigans can be expected.
    Peterson, Murry and others are on solid scientific ground and saying so is now illegal in canada.

  36. This whole gender thing finally has me convinced. Because there is absolutely no way to correctly identify anyone at a level approaching ridiculous, I will now always call everyone ‘he’. I find this appropriate as I inventory as he and consider my own experience as paramount to perfection. Because you are not allowed to reject this you cannot argue. I don’t care if I see someone with 34DD tits and an obvious lake of extra tackle in the groin area, that’s a he.

    Now I never have to be wrong.

  37. So if sex doesn’t exist, logically, the patriarchy and male privilege can’t exist either, right? Right?

  38. Moral of the Story
    If backed into a corner because of a recording of them bullying a girl who cried, the Left will say anything to get past the controversy
    But no one will be punished in the slightest
    No one will pay any price beyond a momentary annoyance at having to sorry not sorry
    And Leftist totalitarianism will roll on and on and on

  39. Students who are in USA can now get a good quality essay help paper from It is guaranteed to customers that the papers that they give meet the high university standards.

  40. They apologized because they were caught, no other reason. The Marxist does not repent unless exposed and even then only as a subterfuge. It is like Taqiyya to Muslims where they can lie to and deceive Infidels.

  41. Teachers need to be highly ethical with respect to their teaching approaches. The example of ethical behaviour on the part of teacher is evident among Australian teachers that are helping students at Australian Assignment Help. They can be accessed at:

  42. One of the great publication.This blogger is awesome.Student seeking assignment help, can submit their requirements to:

  43. Thank you for your article. I have read through some similar topics! However, your article gave me a very special impression, unlike other articles. I hope you continue to have valuable articles like this or more to share with everyone! | |

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.