CoYoTejoshuawni doubt the sentiments of a bunch of underperforming college undergraduates that live in a bubble & either inevitably drop out or barely get their degree will have widespread consequences, but i understand your frustration. it is definitely annoying to see people of my own generation suckered into it.
These people are becoming: primary and secondary school teachers, journalists, media personalities, political activists, politicians etc.
Schools in NY were making their 6-11 year old white kids feel like bad people just because they are white whilst giving the "ethnic" ones special privileges and free cake/whatever just because they are "ethnic".
This stuff will not be confined to a little bubble. Ideas spread, very quickly.
i think conflating issues regarding implicit identity with those of racism is not only dangerous, but entirely fallacious.
activism against racism and sexism (namely feminism) deal with biases and discrimination against factors of identity that cannot be readily hidden when engaging in discourse. in other words, these forms of activism are concerned about why discourse over non-identity topics are inhibited due to external factors that are readily visible to every participant. this overview is meant to be obvious; these forms of activism need to be rigorously defined so that we can tackle the propriety of activism of preferred pronouns.
unlike skin color & gender, implicit identity, such as "preferred pronouns" and "sexuality", needs to be explicitly introduced into discourse for participants to be aware of it. as long as the laws classifying the acts of discrimination are very narrow and clear (i.e. explicitly harassing someone for identifying, or for assuming they identify, as gay, straight, or feeling empowered by being referred to in a neutral manner), then what goodboy said on the first page is fine.
yet, professional academics and psychologists are still observably arguing over the propriety of the recently instituted discrimination laws, and it's most certainly not because they're bigoted nor because they're trying to dehumanize people (why the fuck would you pursue a PHD if you didn't care about society???). the laws in contention clearly weren't well-vetted nor rigorously peer-reviewed by psychologists; these laws were arguably enacted as a knee-jerk response to a poorly detailed problem. thus, the factors that constitute discrimination against implicit identity must be reevaluated as neutrally & unemotionally as possible.
vagueness in discrimination laws allow those with malicious intentions to derail conversations and/or to force participants to beat around the bush by establishing their implicit identities before being productive (just look at how fucking long the initial speakers took in OP's video before any actual arguments were made). thus, professional academics like Dr. Peterson aren't trying to disrespect those who have unique personality and identity traits (who doesn't???). instead, they're trying to argue that everyone's rights can be secured by keeping identity-related topics separated from non-identity topics.
in conclusion, fuck your & everyone else's implicit identity. we're all going to die. stop caring so much about your stupid individual existence. i don't care if you like dicks; major in math so i can give an iota of a fuck about you. FUCK.