Bryan

They should have to provide such test results themselves if they want to people to refer to them by some made up term.

That very succinctly sums up the disconnect on this topic. People who believe themselves to be something other than the physical objective truth are free to indulge in that. They can play dress up, change their name, get surgery, change their lifestyle, etc, in any manner that they choose. That is where they have rights. No one should be allowed to make them stop. At the same time, anyone who doesn't want to play that game has the absolute right to choose to opt out. This whole "you can be anything you want" thing is just the modern version of the Emperor's New Clothes. You're being told that you're not allowed to mention what is actually in front of you, but must instead pretend that you see the same thing that everyone else is pretending that they see.

There is no requirement to address people by religious or orientation related titles either. If I just mention Kevin and Billy instead of Christian Kevin and Gay Billy, no one is trying to make me say the latter.

It would be inappropriate only if the professor was not XY.

It definitely clarifies that it's NOT a legitimate issue at all, and that people are getting upset about something that they made up out of whole cloth. If a person can decide what they want to be or be referred as, they clearly are NOT an identifiable group. That's what this whole thing is about -- rational people want to just use the dictionary definition based on what they are able to identify. Irrational people want the right to make up new words and pretend that they are being harassed if others don't want to play that game.

It's fun how that's the thing that you always seem to want to do. In the real world, we have more tact. Yes, some people lie. And nope, you won't always know if someone is pretending to be something that they are not.

Pronouns are objective. What someone prefers is irrelevant.

That is the reason it makes sense. One place with more people should not be able to dictate policy for ten other places with less people. They each have different concerns.

I was in California during the election. I met a surprising number of Trump supporters. edit: mind you, we were much further south (between LA and San Diego). SF might well be different.

They did. That's why Hillary lost.

Yes, that's why his campaign laid out a plan that involved 10 pieces of legislation to replace the ACA. Simply cancelling it outright was never what he was proposing.

No you don't.

The "too dumb to know that they're dumb" ones are the ones who insist that everyone who has a different perspective than they have is automatically a racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc.

That thinking is why so many Democrats were blind-sided by the Trump win. They choose to live in an echo-chamber, and don't actually know what other people are thinking or talking about. It happens in most elections here too -- opposition supporters didn't even consider the possibility that the other guy could win because no one that they allowed themselves to associate with was talking about voting that way. They cry out in protest simply because it's so jarring to their world-view. No side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on that either.

It's terrible. I don't even visit very often anymore, the whole site is just too painful to even look at.

Don't confuse what you read on CBC with events that may be actually occurring. Nobody that I know is the least bit concerned about this. It's easy to work around.

They haven't "won" anything. Plenty of VPNs still work just fine.

I don't think McRaney ever does transcripts, I've never seen one for his shows.

That defines PROHIBITED discrimination. Other forms (like the one in the OP) are still discriminatory, they're just allowed. The funny part is, obviously discriminating in the listed forms is also still allowed all of the time. Often it's even mandated by the government.

Of course it's discrimination. But it's a perfect example of why discrimination is not the evil thing people make it out to be. People discriminate all of the time, that's life. You cannot make everyone like you, it's impossible.

For what it's worth, the english version of the Mohammed wikipedia page is not only still editable, they are specifically asking for people to fact check it in the editors discussions.

I'm sure I'll eventually get used to it, but so far I'm not seeing anything that I would even remotely call an improvement from a user perspective. The profile pages are a mess, most of the "options" don't appear to work or make any difference.

I've had a couple of posts disappear immediately after posting, then the site just hangs.

Newer forum interfaces are typically poorly designed compared to older ones, but this is the worst one I've seen in a while. It's pretty painful to wade through.