From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Canadian author and psychologist revealed that he will undergo ‘re-education’ mandated by the College of Psychologists of Ontario to fight for Canadian professionals who are not able to stand up to the  mob.

Dr. Jordan Peterson accepted the College of Psychologists of Ontario’s (CPO) social media “training” as a way to defend free speech for all Canadians.

In an op-ed published September 14th by the National Post, the best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist who gained fame for his opposition to compelled speech and gender ideology, announced that he will undergo the social media “training” mandated by the CPO for challenging the LGBT agenda.

“I have accepted the college’s ruling, even though the so-called ‘social media experts’ recommended by that board are members of a profession that does not exist, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that their recommendations for altering my behaviour, whatever they might be, will have any effect whatsoever on improving my ability to function as a professional psychologist,” he wrote.

Last August, the regulatory body mandated that he undergo social media “training” after complaints related to his posts social media opposing gender ideology, specifically the mutilation of children. Peterson was threatened with the removal of his clinical license if he refused the training.

Peterson has spent months fighting the CPO’s mandate. His case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, in early August, the court rejected Peterson’s appeal, leading him to finally agree to the re-education program.

Peterson explained that he is “financially independent” and does not need his license to support himself, having closed his clinical practice some time ago.

Nevertheless, he declared that he will not leave quietly, instead fighting for other professionals who do not have the resources to stand up against the LGBT mob.

“However, this is not only about me, since all regulated professionals in our fair country find themselves in the same leaky boat I currently occupy,” he explained.

“Thus, if I capitulate in any manner — if I simply resign, if I settle in any other way without addressing the public issues that have been raised by the case — then all the engineers, teachers, lawyers, physicians, psychologists etc. in Canada remain at risk for reputation, financial security and livelihood every time they dare open their mouths,” he warned.

“How can Canadians possibly remain well served by those very professionals when they risk everything every time they dare offer their genuine opinions on such matters, say, as the gender identity of a confused adolescent (psychologically), or when they wish to express skepticism about some new wonder drug or treatment pushed forward by the pharmaceutical cabal, walking hand in hand with the very regulators they have captured (medically)?” he questioned.

Peterson also repeated his pledge to publicize “the details of this charade as widely and effectively as possible.”

“There is no bloody way I am going to allow my professional organization to maneuver as they prefer behind closed doors, in the secretive style all petty tyrants prefer,” he declared.

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”

In yet another blow to free speech in Australia, Jasmine Sussex, a Victorian breastfeeding expert, is being taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for saying that only females can breastfeed their babies.

Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”

Her tweets about an Australian male breastfeeding his infant with a cocktail of lactose-inducing drugs was removed by X (formerly Twitter) for Australian users, although it remained visible to overseas users. The move came after requests from a “government entity or law enforcement agency”, according to Twitter. Sussex was told she had “broken the law” although it was not made clear what law that was.

Sussex was also sacked from the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) for refusing to use gender neutral language. She is one of seven counsellors to be formally investigated by the ABA leadership and one of five to be sacked.

The complaint against Sussex is being brought by Queenslander Jennifer Buckley in Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Buckley was born male and later identified as a woman and “transitioned.” Buckley acted after a transgender parent complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Buckley reportedly biologically fathered a baby through IVF and is raising the child with his wife. He posted on social media about taking hormones to grow breasts, explaining: “For the past six weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding.”

The case is not just about suppressing a person’s right to say what most would consider to be a statement of the obvious. It raises fundamental questions about how the law is to be crafted and applied.

A legal system depends on clear semantics, the definition of words. The potential confusion that can be created by not having a clear understanding of a person’s sex was exposed in the hearing for US Supreme Court applicant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Asked to define what a “woman” is, Jackson replied: “I can’t,” adding that she was not a biologist.

The problem here is that, if you cannot define a word, then how can you use it properly in a court of law? For example, if you do not know what a “woman” is, then how can you be said to have transitioned from a man to a woman, as Buckley is claiming?

This definitional problem has been cynically fudged by mixing up the words “gender” and “sex.” It is claimed that there are 72 genders, by implication turning the question of physical sex into a matter of identity and personal psychology. There are presumably only two sexes.

That is the kind of rhetorical move made by Buckley, who said Sussex’s comments were “hurtful” because he was looking to have “the experience of breastfeeding.” This is analogous to saying that gender differences should be reduced to matters of personal perception, not observable physical characteristics.

In that sense, Sussex and Buckley are talking past each other; the words they use do not have the same meaning. Sussex is saying that objectively only “women” can lactate naturally. It is true that with drug assistance it is possible for “men” to mimic breast feeding to a limited degree. But that is artificial. It is not natural breast feeding. Sussex, who is an experienced consultant on breast feeding, also warns there may be medical issues with “male” breastfeeding that need further examination.

Buckley is arguing that her/his personal experience (of breastfeeding) is what matters and that anyone who questions that is infringing on his rights. He wants to be understood as a “woman” who was a “man”, although he reportedly still possesses male characteristics, such as being able to father a child. This is possible because he feels that way, it is how he “identifies”. But the fact that he has to undergo drug treatment indicates that in a physical sense he is a “man”.

In law, there is always a preference for physical evidence over what people say they are thinking or feeling. The latter is often changeable and difficult to demonstrate; it is poor quality evidence. There should also be an insistence on having an unambiguous understanding of the meaning of words.

On that basis Sussex, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Alliance, should be able to defend herself effectively. But there is little reason to have confidence in the Australian legal system. It has shown itself to be highly susceptible to politics. The bullying of people who say things once thought to be self-evident may yet continue.