I first became an admirer of Jordan Peterson way back in 2016. When he was a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, Peterson pushed back against a Canadian law compelling speech in terms of preferred pronouns for transgender individuals.
In his support, an on-campus rally was held by students that also drew the media and some pro-trans activists. What impressed me about him was something he said afterwards. At the rally, things became heated and one of the pro-trans activists became angry and assaulted someone; concerning this incident, Peterson said: “I actually had a tiny bit of sympathy for the person…” I really liked that. It showed compassion on his part.
Soon afterward, Peterson became famous throughout the world and immediately became an unlikely symbol of masculine fortitude. For legions of primarily young wayward men on the internet, with few or no male role models in their lives, Peterson also became a sort of surrogate father-figure. He began to release a series of lectures and interviews in which he encouraged young men to take responsibility for their own lives; most memorably telling them to “stand up straight” and “clean your room.”
In 2016, I was not a young man; I was middle-aged. But I had grown up with very little male acceptance or affirmation. And that led me down a very dark path. So, I appreciated his efforts. But then he started to closely collaborate with two already well-known “classical liberal” homosexuals: Douglas Murray and, in particular, Dave Rubin, and then I had concerns.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin have interviewed each other over the years multiple times; the last time was on November 21, 2024, on Peterson’s YouTube channel. Almost immediately the topic of Rubin’s “marriage” to another man and their subsequent surrogacy of two children (two years prior) was discussed. Rubin said to Peterson: “You were integral in me having kids.” In 2018, Peterson and Rubin embarked on a worldwide speaking tour and Rubin explained how Peterson’s repeated opinions about the importance of child-rearing in a marriage inspired his desire to have children with his same-sex partner. Rubin stated:
“I’ve got David [Rubin’s partner] who I’m Face-Timing with every night, whatever country in, telling me he wants kids and I’ve got you on stage telling 10,000 people every night why they should have kids and finally I thought, man if I don’t do this there’s really something wrong with me.”
A few minutes later in the conversation, Peterson said that “people don’t mature generally until they have a child and the reason for that is you’re not mature until someone’s more important than you.” Rubin also said during the interview: “I mean I’ve changed more in these two years and matured more and dealt with more of my stuff … certainly at any point in my adult life.”
From my knowledge, Peterson first discussed the issue of same-sex parenting when he interviewed Rubin in 2022 during a podcast (posted to Peterson’s channel) titled: “Gay Parenting: Promise and Pitfalls.” While initially Peterson somewhat attempted to play the role of “devil’s advocate,” oftentimes citing certain studies that demonstrate that children reared without a father (or a mother) are at an increased deficit than those raised by two opposite-sex parents. Commendable. But, rather quickly, Peterson takes on the role of social engineer or, even worse, Dr. Frankenstein.
Peterson claimed that such obstacles make same-sex parenting “more technically difficult” as well as “very complicated.” When they began to talk about the importance of breastfeeding, Peterson referred to this as “another complication.” Rubin’s response was: “I have two freezers in my garage … full of breast milk.” Shortly afterward, Peterson concluded: “You and David have ample resources at hand financially and intellectually that enable you to traverse this pathway as well as anyone is likely to do it.”
Currently, the sex change industry is over a 6 billion dollar worldwide industry, but the surrogacy market is valued at $14 billion. Like Dr. Frankenstein, Peterson sees the means and the opportunity to do something as reason enough to do as one pleases; in a sense, to act like a god.
This is a strange way of approaching morality – unencumbered by the constraints of tradition and history, and seems incredibly odd for Peterson because he’s been described by some as a “traditionalist.” At least in the West, the conception of marriage (that was solely reserved for those of the opposite sex) and family has been greatly informed by historical practice and Christian dogmas. Here, Peterson appears to be rather nonchalantly willing to abandon the entire project that has existed for thousands of years — going all the way back to the early Patriarchs and Prophets. Rather incomprehensible that such a supposedly brilliant man does not see the modern deconstruction of marriage and the family as part of the war on the West.
In my opinion, Peterson’s argument about how “technically” it’s more difficult for gay couples to have children, but that those problems can be overcome (through technology), is essentially the same argument for transgenderism. In other words, physiological differences between the sexes no longer matter; the complementarity between the sexes no longer matters; the sexual organs no longer matter either. This was the argument in favor of same-sex marriage. And it’s the same one used for transgenderism. Sex no longer determines marriage; and it no longer determines gender, and it no longer determines sex. Two men can have a child without a woman; and a man can become a woman — all made possible by technology. In such a nightmarish world, gay male sodomy is analogous to the male-female consummation of marriage; with such a mindset, a bodily orifice is the same as any other bodily orifice. Hence, through so-called “sex change” surgeries, an inverted penis can become a vagina.
For some classical liberals, and even pro-gay “conservatives,” respect for the profound physical differences between the sexes has become almost sacred due to the inclusion of transgender men into the realm of women’s sports. Creating an incredible social and political backlash. Yet, to those same individuals, in terms of marriage, sex is meaningless. As for Jordan Peterson, during his 2023 interview with female swimmer Riley Gains, Peterson goes to great length in describing the differences between the sexes and how those differences must ensure that women’s sports are protected. However, I think everyone would agree that marriage is a much more significant historical, social, cultural, and religious institution and tradition than women’s sports. But Peterson is not adamant about protecting it from such disregard for the same exact sexual differences.
In his arguments against the so-called “transitioning” of gender-confused children, Peterson, as well as many others, have emphasized the physical and psychological harm caused by dangerous pharmaceutical interventions, such as “hormone blockers,” as well as in extreme cases, the practice of sex-change operations. What he has never mentioned is the inherent dangers in same-sex surrogacy; not for the two homosexual men, but for the women who become either “egg donors” or surrogates.
In addition to the egg donor, in gay male couples, there is also the necessity of a surrogate to carry the fetus to term. In the surrogacy industry, these women are known as “gestational carrier.” Peterson and his classical liberal allies are outraged by the disregard and lack of respect for women in female sports, but he has said nothing about this. I’ve also noticed that in the online advertisements for same-sex surrogacy, the images utilized by this industry oftentimes incorporate a headless pregnant woman with a gay male couple lurking in the background. In addition to the depersonalization of this practice, again, according to certain studies, women who are surrogates have higher rates of complications compared to natural mothers.
No one expects Jordan Peterson to speak, even passingly, about every social evil on Earth. That would be impossible. But he chose to speak repeatedly about both transgenderism and gay surrogacy. In an extended version of his “Gay Parenting” conversation with Rubin, Peterson clearly gave his blessing to the project:
“…so, I’ve had very close friends who were gay, and many students as well, and so you know that’s a case in point, but then I also found talking to you on the tour, I thought well my personal sense was well, if you want to have kids that’s a good thing and so I would be fully supportive of that, and so congratulations Dave.”
In that same extended interview, Rubin said: “I’ve done everything I can do … I can’t tell you how I know it, I just know there’s some piece now that is supposed to put this full puzzle together.”
For a transgender person, this puzzle is completed through “gender affirmation,” which might include hormone therapy or even surgery. In Rubin’s case, it’s through the creation of a human being. This sort of reliance upon the sometimes-nebulous quality of personal emotions is what most critics of transgenderism focus upon. But not here.
Lastly, in his interview with Rubin, Peterson brought up the topic, what he described as: “[the] surgical transformation of children who are more likely to be gay.” Just a few days after he posted his “Gay Parenting” interview with Rubin, “The Telegraph” ran an article (dated July 1, 2022) boldly titled – “Jordan Peterson: ‘Gay kids are being convinced they’re transsexual. That’s not so good for gay people, is it?’” Well, just as there is no such thing as a “trans kids,” there is no such thing as a “gay kids.” This language that Peterson is playing is charged with many imminent dangers because the idea that children are sexual originated in the sick theories of Alfred Kinsey.
Kinsey employed pedophiles to rape and torture children in order to supposedly study their sexual responses. Kinsey believed that “weeping” and “convulsions” in children proved sexual pleasure. Over the years, I have amassed a considerable list of scientific studies that demonstrate that a substantial percentage of gay men were sexually abused as children. Therefore, Peterson making an argument that, when compared to transgenderism, homosexuality in children is either inherent or even good is not only ignorant but monstrous. In fact, a study found that all of the girls and half of the boys, who were no longer gender dysphoric, reported having a heterosexual orientation.
As Peterson was once sympathetic with that trans activist who got overly infuriated way back in 2016, I too have sympathy for someone like Dave Rubin. While he certainly has influence over his own life, he was also been deceived by people such as Peterson. And, sadly, Rubin has dragged others along with him, including innocent children. Peterson has become what he initially fought against; he has become “Smugglypuff.” Someone who twists the truth or simply refuses to speak it.
Back when I used to do street ministry in San Francisco during the annual Pride parade and festivities, I met two half-sisters born from different lesbian mothers who both shared the same sperm donor. As adults, they found each other. They were lovely women, and I enjoyed talking with them. Later, I thought about our encounter. I was thankful that they were born, but I could not stop thinking about the human costs. I wondered about the world we created, where anything that science can engineer is possible. Man has seemingly become the master of his own realm. Though, even without the technological advances, there is something grotesque about the entire thing.
When I was a boy, one of my favorite films was “The Bride of Frankenstein” from 1935. Directed by James Whale, a talented but unhappy gay man, who survived a difficult childhood only to later commit suicide; probably the scariest character in the film is the mad scientist, Doctor Pretorius. He convinces Henry Frankenstein to resume his human experiments. In the film, Pretorius delivers the movie’s most famous line when he heralds “a new world of gods and monsters!” In the entire “Frankenstein” series of movies, the only individual I felt sorry for was monster himself. He wasn’t a monster — the actual monsters are those who believe they are gods.
Originally published at Sons of St. Joseph.
Joseph Sciambra has written extensively concerning the real-life issues of pornography, homosexuality, and the occult. His articles have been published by LifeSiteNews, The Stream, and First Things. He received his BA from the University of California at Berkeley in Art History and his MA from Sonoma State University. His blog and podcast can be found at: josephsciambra.com
