You may or may not know that I made some videos criticizing Bill C‑16 and a number of the policies surrounding it. I think the most egregious elements of the policies are that it requires compelled speech. The Ontario Human Rights Commission explicitly states that refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun, which are the pronouns I was objecting to, can be interpreted as harassment. That's explicitly defined in the relevant policies. I think that's appalling, first of all, because there hasn't been a piece of legislation that requires Canadians to utter a particular form of address that has particular ideological implications before, and I think it's a line we shouldn't cross.The American Conservative also reports more on Peter Vlaming's termination:
The definition of identity that's enshrined in the surrounding policies is ill-defined, poorly thought through and also incorrect. It's incorrect in that identity is not and will never be something that people define subjectively because your identity is something you actually have to act out in the world as a set of procedural tools, which most people learn - and I'm being technical about this - between the ages of two and four. It's a fundamental human reality. It's well recognized by the relevant, say, developmental psychological authorities. The idea that identity is something you define purely subjectively is an idea without status as far as I'm concerned.
I also think it's unbelievably dangerous for us to move towards representing a social constructionist view of identity in our legal system. The social constructionist view insists that human identity is nothing but a consequence of socialization, and there's an inordinate amount of scientific evidence suggesting that that happens to not be the case. So the reason that this is being instantiated into law is because the people who are promoting that sort of perspective, or at least in part because the people promoting that sort of perspective, know perfectly well they've lost the battle completely on scientific grounds.
The teacher had been there for seven years. He did not "misgender" the student, as some have said. He simply refused to use a pronoun to refer to the student. He was trying to work around the policy, even calling the kid by the new masculine name the girl now uses. But that wasn't good enough for either the kid or the school.
There will be no compromises. You must comply in every way with this war on reality, or you're out. [...]
Eventually the US Supreme Court is going to have to make some kind of ruling on these transgender claims, which are not only a war on religious liberty, but more fundamentally a war on biological reality. Jordan Peterson, who is not a religious man, came to wide public notice after he refused to knuckle under to his university's transgender pronoun mandate. Unlike an American high school teacher, he had tenure. Maybe one day the Supreme Court will carve out protection for modern Galileos. As awful as he is, I am grateful that we have a president who appoints conservative judges. That's the only chance the Jordan Petersons and Peter Vlamings of the world have.
This is not a minor thing. This has to do with fundamental truth. As recently as a decade ago, if you had told people that the day was soon coming where a high school teacher in Virginia would be fired for refusing to say that a biological female was male, people would have accused you of being a hysteric.
Comment: Julian von Abele says in the video that he doesn't hate other people (presumably he means people of other ethnicities), he just loves white men for what they've contributed to the world. This doesn't make him a racist. It means that he doesn't hate himself for being white and he doesn't want to follow the postmodern party line where everything white and male is intrinsically evil "because patriarchy". Unfortunately, such a position is unacceptable for the SJW thought police.