6 ms·

> In accordance with UBC’s CRC Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Action Plan, and pursuant to Section 42 of the BC Human Rights code, the selection will be restric

by jarbus 5y ago

> In accordance with UBC’s CRC Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Action Plan, and pursuant to Section 42 of the BC Human Rights code, the selection will be restricted to members of the following designated groups: persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, women and gender minorities (transgender, gender-fluid, nonbinary and Two-Spirit people), and racialized minorities. Applicants to CRC positions are asked to complete this equity survey as part of the application, and candidates from these groups must self-identify as belonging to one or more of the designated equity groups to be considered for the position. Because the search is limited to those self-identifying as members of designated equity groups, candidates must also provide their name to be considered. Oh my god this is nuts

causality0 5y ago
- vmception 5y ago
  The pacific northwest, on the Canadian side, has its own divergent terms of inclusivity. Mostly in reference to existing forms of inclusivity that were never controversial in some of the pre-colonial civilizations that already existed there. But require labels and grouping with other edge cases for any meaningful representation and protection in the post-colonial society. That being said, it means the rest of us dont really need to try to match that up with our own forms of inclusivity. It is always important to poll and gauge the consensus. Right now, what goes on in BC/Vancouver with maybe a little spillover into Washington is not representative of anything the rest of us need to be aware of or adapt in our vocabulary as if it is consensus. Useful to know if you’re in vancouver or meet indigenous from vancouver, as there is significant overlap in the inclusionary efforts and indigenous representation.
  - C19is20 5y ago
    Explain like I'm 5?
    - vmception 5y ago
      It means you can ignore it unless you live in Vancouver. It isn’t related to the broader gay rights community, but masquerades as being something to be aware of, but is only relevant to the long existing cultures in that area.
    - alchemism 5y ago
      Are you a biological woman that enjoys hunting? Two-Spirit. Are you a biological man that enjoys maintaining a household? Two-Spirit. It is an indigenous cultural construct for allowing variation in gender constructs.
      - david38 5y ago
        So tomboys get special treatment?
        vmception 5y ago
        that was just a simplified example. they're basically saying you don't need gender dysmorphia to occassionally act like another gender because the genders aren't binary to begin with. something more easily acceptable in a culture that never adopted the binary concept. its more analogous to nonbinary. the rest of us that care to validate this just say nonbinary. the people that aren't trying to take hormones to pass as a different gender, but wish to be called "they" anyway
        alchemism 5y ago
        The opposite, if you think about it for a minute… (Traditionally)
    - jollybean 5y ago
      Two Spirit is a broad, generic term for 'Queer' that existed among native peoples pre-colonialisation. The commenter indicating that it's 'A Vancouver' thing is not quite right: it's broadly an Aboriginal issue, not just an issue of the West Coast tribes. That said, the commenter is correct in that it's more sensitive issue among the Woke Left in the Vancouver area as it's part of their social consensus lingo. I suggest if you live in Canada, it's probably something to be aware of as this language will show up in institutions in the East as well. Despite my reluctance around the kinds of groups running these programs, in the United States sadly there seems to be no effort at all to support Aboriginals as part of the core minorities, in lieu of other groups. And so I don't think we'll see this language on MSNBC anytime soon, though I wish there was more attention to this group as a whole.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- steeleduncan 5y ago
  > "Two-spirit" is a new one on me In that case, perhaps google it rather than make glib remarks about it?
  - causality0 5y ago
    Two Spirit is considered a contemporary, umbrella term that is specific to the Indigenous LGBT2QQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, Two Spirit, queer, questioning, intersexual, asexual) community. Frankly I'm not sure whether to laugh at the idea a gender identity can be limited to a specific ethnicity or to condemn it as inherently racist. This is entirely too meta.
    - EForEndeavour 5y ago
      To be fair, I'm pretty sure "specific to" here means "comes from the culture of," not "can only ever apply to people of the following ethnicity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender > [Third gender is] a social category present in societies that recognize three or more genders. This article provides some examples from around the world of cultures which recognize nonbinary genders. I'm not used to that, and evidently you aren't either, because the concept isn't "specific to" the cultures we grew up in.
    - vmception 5y ago
      Its easier when you think of them as sovereign separate cultures with their own customs than just an amorphous “indigenous” ethnicity. And then conform that to majority society while trying to maintain representation and respect. Thats why it looks sillier than it is. They retroactively adopted the LGBTXYZ Its not meta, its ignorable It has nothing to do with us or the level of inclusion we learn to tolerate/appreciate, if you arent in vancouver area (or any place in Canada with pre-colonial civilizations nearby, as someone else wrote)
    - yostrovs 5y ago
      It's surprising to lump asexual people with bisexual, lesbian, etc. It's like lumping people that hate cars with members of Mercedes and Porsche clubs into a "community".
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's the Aboriginal version of 'transgender / queer'. The paradox is - if there isn't an objective way to identify these groups, then arguably they do not exist other than purely in terms of 'self identification' which is a serious blow to the legitimacy of anything, really. So if LGBTQ+ were formal categories, then we could just use those instead of adding 'Two Spirit'. We wouldn't use the Aboriginal, German or Japanese words for them, because that would make no sense, we have words for things which exist already. But because categories are culturally defined, but more paradoxically - self-defined - then it exposes a serious problem of postmodernism. Everyone should apply to the position as 'Two Spirit' - there literally is no material definition for the categorization, and the Canadian Supreme Court would be bending itself backwards in Asana Yoga poses to find out how to apply the Woke Terminology that lacks any definition. The Law is inexorably funded on objectivity, it can't very well function otherwise. Pulling the thread on this Sweater will undo it completely, the best thing to do is start pulling on it hard because it will expose the inanity of it all. I actually do support people in vulnerable situations, and getting people from marginalized communities into systems which they feel they can't participate in, but this isn't the playbook we should be using.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Is there an objective way for the government to identify gay people that isn't based on self identification? If a gay man's rights are being violated on a protected basis, does the court refuse to hear the case until he has sex with another man in front of the judge and jury? Self identification is entirely how social categories function. Postmodernism isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive - it describes how things already work.
    - causality0 5y ago
      I think that's his point, that an institution is discriminating in such a way as allows the people ostensibly being excluded to use the discrimination to rebel against slash punish the institution for the discrimination.
      - 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mateo1 5y ago
This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal. I understand that in some countries with a long history of racial segregation there still is a culture of casual (or even subconscious) racism when considering new hires or university applicants. It's unspoken but very real and unless you've been an immigrant or minority you don't get to see the full extend of it. But (and it's a big but) you don't solve this problem with more racism. I see headlines about US universities rejecting applicants because of their race or skin colour and how they "already have enough of them". That is crazy. Imagine how unfair it is to be rejected on that basis. It's hard to tackle conspiring racists as a legislator. That's why all these weird half-measures came to be. But there are better ways. Standardized tests as the main or only criteria for university entry. Effective committees that oversee hiring choices and seek for evidence of racism and favoritism in the choices made by companies. But when you impose objective criteria you risk hurting the wealthy and well-connected. So it's "better" to just shove a few more minorities on the list and make it look right without it actually being fair. Another serious side-effect of this is that it breeds racism and resentment.
- throw10920 5y ago
  > This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal. This problem arises because the people putting these policies into place (or their constituents, whatever) are trying to redefine the meaning of "fair". Your definition of "fair" (and mine, and most peoples, and the sane one, and the original one before it was hijacked) is "equal treatment". Their definition of "fair" is "equal amounts of assets" - equity. Put another way, these laws are driven by people who think that it's unfair for different people to have different amounts of money. You can probably guess which ideology this comes from. Anyway, given that definition of "unfair", it's natural to define "racism" to mean "unequal outcomes" (different amounts of money) instead of the original "unequal treatment". From their perspective, the action mentioned in the article decreases racism.

by jarbus 5y ago

causality0 5y ago

vmception 5y ago
The pacific northwest, on the Canadian side, has its own divergent terms of inclusivity. Mostly in reference to existing forms of inclusivity that were never controversial in some of the pre-colonial civilizations that already existed there. But require labels and grouping with other edge cases for any meaningful representation and protection in the post-colonial society. That being said, it means the rest of us dont really need to try to match that up with our own forms of inclusivity. It is always important to poll and gauge the consensus. Right now, what goes on in BC/Vancouver with maybe a little spillover into Washington is not representative of anything the rest of us need to be aware of or adapt in our vocabulary as if it is consensus. Useful to know if you’re in vancouver or meet indigenous from vancouver, as there is significant overlap in the inclusionary efforts and indigenous representation.
- C19is20 5y ago
  Explain like I'm 5?
  - vmception 5y ago
    It means you can ignore it unless you live in Vancouver. It isn’t related to the broader gay rights community, but masquerades as being something to be aware of, but is only relevant to the long existing cultures in that area.
  - alchemism 5y ago
    Are you a biological woman that enjoys hunting? Two-Spirit. Are you a biological man that enjoys maintaining a household? Two-Spirit. It is an indigenous cultural construct for allowing variation in gender constructs.
    - david38 5y ago
      So tomboys get special treatment?
      - vmception 5y ago
        that was just a simplified example. they're basically saying you don't need gender dysmorphia to occassionally act like another gender because the genders aren't binary to begin with. something more easily acceptable in a culture that never adopted the binary concept. its more analogous to nonbinary. the rest of us that care to validate this just say nonbinary. the people that aren't trying to take hormones to pass as a different gender, but wish to be called "they" anyway
      - alchemism 5y ago
        The opposite, if you think about it for a minute… (Traditionally)
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Two Spirit is a broad, generic term for 'Queer' that existed among native peoples pre-colonialisation. The commenter indicating that it's 'A Vancouver' thing is not quite right: it's broadly an Aboriginal issue, not just an issue of the West Coast tribes. That said, the commenter is correct in that it's more sensitive issue among the Woke Left in the Vancouver area as it's part of their social consensus lingo. I suggest if you live in Canada, it's probably something to be aware of as this language will show up in institutions in the East as well. Despite my reluctance around the kinds of groups running these programs, in the United States sadly there seems to be no effort at all to support Aboriginals as part of the core minorities, in lieu of other groups. And so I don't think we'll see this language on MSNBC anytime soon, though I wish there was more attention to this group as a whole.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
steeleduncan 5y ago
> "Two-spirit" is a new one on me In that case, perhaps google it rather than make glib remarks about it?
- causality0 5y ago
  Two Spirit is considered a contemporary, umbrella term that is specific to the Indigenous LGBT2QQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, Two Spirit, queer, questioning, intersexual, asexual) community. Frankly I'm not sure whether to laugh at the idea a gender identity can be limited to a specific ethnicity or to condemn it as inherently racist. This is entirely too meta.
  - EForEndeavour 5y ago
    To be fair, I'm pretty sure "specific to" here means "comes from the culture of," not "can only ever apply to people of the following ethnicity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender > [Third gender is] a social category present in societies that recognize three or more genders. This article provides some examples from around the world of cultures which recognize nonbinary genders. I'm not used to that, and evidently you aren't either, because the concept isn't "specific to" the cultures we grew up in.
  - vmception 5y ago
    Its easier when you think of them as sovereign separate cultures with their own customs than just an amorphous “indigenous” ethnicity. And then conform that to majority society while trying to maintain representation and respect. Thats why it looks sillier than it is. They retroactively adopted the LGBTXYZ Its not meta, its ignorable It has nothing to do with us or the level of inclusion we learn to tolerate/appreciate, if you arent in vancouver area (or any place in Canada with pre-colonial civilizations nearby, as someone else wrote)
  - yostrovs 5y ago
    It's surprising to lump asexual people with bisexual, lesbian, etc. It's like lumping people that hate cars with members of Mercedes and Porsche clubs into a "community".
jollybean 5y ago
It's the Aboriginal version of 'transgender / queer'. The paradox is - if there isn't an objective way to identify these groups, then arguably they do not exist other than purely in terms of 'self identification' which is a serious blow to the legitimacy of anything, really. So if LGBTQ+ were formal categories, then we could just use those instead of adding 'Two Spirit'. We wouldn't use the Aboriginal, German or Japanese words for them, because that would make no sense, we have words for things which exist already. But because categories are culturally defined, but more paradoxically - self-defined - then it exposes a serious problem of postmodernism. Everyone should apply to the position as 'Two Spirit' - there literally is no material definition for the categorization, and the Canadian Supreme Court would be bending itself backwards in Asana Yoga poses to find out how to apply the Woke Terminology that lacks any definition. The Law is inexorably funded on objectivity, it can't very well function otherwise. Pulling the thread on this Sweater will undo it completely, the best thing to do is start pulling on it hard because it will expose the inanity of it all. I actually do support people in vulnerable situations, and getting people from marginalized communities into systems which they feel they can't participate in, but this isn't the playbook we should be using.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Is there an objective way for the government to identify gay people that isn't based on self identification? If a gay man's rights are being violated on a protected basis, does the court refuse to hear the case until he has sex with another man in front of the judge and jury? Self identification is entirely how social categories function. Postmodernism isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive - it describes how things already work.
  - causality0 5y ago
    I think that's his point, that an institution is discriminating in such a way as allows the people ostensibly being excluded to use the discrimination to rebel against slash punish the institution for the discrimination.
    - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mateo1 5y ago

This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal. I understand that in some countries with a long history of racial segregation there still is a culture of casual (or even subconscious) racism when considering new hires or university applicants. It's unspoken but very real and unless you've been an immigrant or minority you don't get to see the full extend of it. But (and it's a big but) you don't solve this problem with more racism. I see headlines about US universities rejecting applicants because of their race or skin colour and how they "already have enough of them". That is crazy. Imagine how unfair it is to be rejected on that basis. It's hard to tackle conspiring racists as a legislator. That's why all these weird half-measures came to be. But there are better ways. Standardized tests as the main or only criteria for university entry. Effective committees that oversee hiring choices and seek for evidence of racism and favoritism in the choices made by companies. But when you impose objective criteria you risk hurting the wealthy and well-connected. So it's "better" to just shove a few more minorities on the list and make it look right without it actually being fair. Another serious side-effect of this is that it breeds racism and resentment.

throw10920 5y ago
> This is racial discrimination. It's unfair and should be illegal. This problem arises because the people putting these policies into place (or their constituents, whatever) are trying to redefine the meaning of "fair". Your definition of "fair" (and mine, and most peoples, and the sane one, and the original one before it was hijacked) is "equal treatment". Their definition of "fair" is "equal amounts of assets" - equity. Put another way, these laws are driven by people who think that it's unfair for different people to have different amounts of money. You can probably guess which ideology this comes from. Anyway, given that definition of "unfair", it's natural to define "racism" to mean "unequal outcomes" (different amounts of money) instead of the original "unequal treatment". From their perspective, the action mentioned in the article decreases racism.