I really do appreciate you taking the time to try to have a reasonable discussion but I still think that Peterson is a huge hypocrite who pretty much says what ever serves his ego needs in the moment. And I am pretty sure that most people who dislike Peterson don’t do so because he is attacking their group identity; it’s because he has so little empathy for what they go through as individuals. He acts as though it’s through their own personal failings that they have suffered what they have. It’s victim blaming at it’s very worst!
For example, 12 million people responded to #MeToo in the first 24 hours. Most of them were women, but some of them were men. Some had been raped, some had been groped or harassed on the street; some had been bullied at work. They were far from a homogenous group but they had a common wound. All of those people should have their individual experiences respected, not been lumped together in a vilified group.
Take feminism for example. First off, that’s not a homogenous thing. Wikipedia identifies something like 17 different forms of it, and yet Peterson lumps all feminists together with the likes of Andrea Dworkin, who was a radical feminist from the 1970s. He acts as if there’s nothing wrong societally for women, despite the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary. Not only does he have no empathy for women as individuals or one half of humanity but adds insult to injury by vilifying the women who try to speak up about the things that are wrong. He does the same with people of color. It’s heartless and stupid, because he is simply shutting out that which he does not wish to see. Again, there is plenty of evidence, but he won’t look at it.
As for moral superiority, I have quite a few friends who voted for Trump and although I think they are misguided, I do not feel myself moral superior to them. But Peterson feels himself morally superior to all kinds of people. When asked if he would ever call a trans person by their preferred pronoun, he said that he would consider it if they asked it the correct way; if he detected no hint of political agenda. So, in other words, if he deemed the human being in question morally acceptable, then he might deign to treat them with respect? How can you suscribe to any of the philosphy of anyone so morally bankrupt as that?