UBC bans non-minority candidates from applying for tenure-track quantum position

When first watching this, it was very believable, exactly because of Canada's recent behaviour regarding discrimination and lockdowns.

The gov. actually do this in some cases i.e. when donating blood and on some other surveys for research.

Of course, you can be gay and celibate, for all intents and purposes (or can you? That's another question) ...

... but we do have a set of objective behaviours for what constitutes being gay.

With Nonbinary trans, Two Spirit, and some of the more exotic categories - we don't.

This is where the Trans effort is going to fall apart: 90% of citizens will accept someone who 'Roughly looks, talks and acts like a woman' - as 'Basically a Woman'.

Trans people could win the war instantly on those terms.

And I'll bet about 75% of Trans people would be happy with that - most of them want safety, equality, dignity.

I believe the majority of Trans people are not hugely concerned that the Pharmacy row for Feminine Hygiene uses the term 'Feminine'.

I will go further: the majority of Trans men and women actually want to be identified as those genders in more traditional terms, and they are not offended that our normative, popular view is that 'Women Have Babies' and 'Men Don't Have Babies'.

But a lot of the people (I believe the minority) promoting the movement want to push it further by dereferencing all popular ideals of 'Male' or 'Female' to make it entirely self-referential.

For example, some want to expunge normative ideals such as 'Women Have Babies', because of course '(Trans)Men have babies as well'. And since 'Trans Men' are '100% Men' in every way, and to contemplate otherwise is bigotry, an erasure of their identities, and therefore a form of 'harm' and 'violence' - the type of language those people use.

It's bit sad actually because the most aggressive voices in the community I don't think are pushing for material progress. Much like regular politics in the US I suppose.

As for UBC, I think they need a better way to accomplish their objectives, which are complicated by the fact that minorities are already technically hugely over-represented at the school.

So what's the objective time period? And if a gay man has an unlucky streak for that length of time, do they auto default back to straight?

What about bi or pan people? If someone identified as bisexual but you have only ever seen them in relationships with the opposite gender, can you reasonably say "you're actually objectively straight"?

The idea of objective metrics for social categories falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. The government can assign objective markers but only for things that are objective - the whole "gay men not being allowed to donate blood" thing for example is meant to screen out HIV right? So the metrics are aligned around that goal (also it's a messed up system but that's another subject).

The government measuring certain metrics does not make them the objective definition, because the government is not the definer of reality.

I think you're confused by a lack of understanding of some of these ideas, plus a healthy mix of "there are quite a few insane or poorly reasoned progressives", but mainly the former. For example, sex and gender are different things, and some of the things you have said confuse the two, but also some arguments from trans activists also do that.

For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. (Emphasis mine)

Straight, white, cis-male seems to fall under a lot of protected classes.