Where did you get that? I never accused you of being anti-trans. You accused someone of having an agenda for linking to a paper that suggests acceptance of gender identity as a means of reducing harm.
I chose my words very carefully to avoid accusing you of anything.
If you actually read that paper, you'll find that it claims evidence of children 6-7 years old starting to separate gender as identity from gender as physical appearance.
I don't think your 8 year old or any 8 year old should be worried about gender identity, which is why I don't agree with making such a big deal about gender identity claims. When it comes right down to it, I don't think anyone of any age should have any concern about anyone's gender identity other than their own. Let people of all ages alone to be who they are without judgement, condemnation, or panic.
It's not me, who is fine with whatever, who is causing any children grief over gender, but those who have their hair on fire over a world that is not quite what they expected.
Okay, so I do less computer programming for money, but it's still a hobby and I contribute to a few open source projects.
But here are a few things that wouldn't get done if I were still employed:
regular classes in internet security and privacy to help keep community members safe online.
volunteering at the school to help teach students both new technologies (3D printing, robotics, environmental data collection and analysis) and old (boat building, sailing, winter survival in nature) plus tutoring in everything from music performance to math.
serving with the emergency measures organization
That's approximately where my list ends, but fellow retirees are helping less abled people stay in their homes and communities, showing up at social justice rallies, and a myriad of other things that are important both societally and economically. If it's judged to be less important than employment, it's also important to note that much of it wouldn't be societally affordable without our free labour, yet has profound impacts on quality of life.
And I disagree that removing incentives leads to less being done. External incentives, like paycheques, are probably the least effective incentives there are. Most people are motivated by passion, desire, contribution, and satisfying results.
This may not apply everywhere, but around here (Saskatchewan), retirees are the lifeblood of service and community organizations. From the quilting club that generates revenue for brain injury research and food banks to the senior centre that helps people age in place, retirees are a critical component of the glue that holds us together.
Even if you have a fairly narrow economic view of what it means to contribute to society, there is no question that retirees are making those contributions. While actual money is required for most things, nothing happens without people putting in time and retirees have plenty of time and aren't shy about using it.
This is something I became aware of as my older relatives retired. Now that I'm retired myself, I'm more active than ever in the community, despite having also retired from the volunteer fire and rescue service.
My concern with a universal income is that it discourages healthy people from working and thus contributing to our collective wellbeing.
Every study I've heard of shows that is not what happens except in very narrow situations. For example, the study run in Dauphin, MB found that teenagers were less likely to work or to work less, but that was because they were choosing to focus on their schooling and, in some cases, actually stay in school. IIRC, there were also people who chose to stay at home with young children or care for infirm relatives rather than find other care options so they could go to low wage, "low skill" jobs. Those outcomes seem positive given the results of other studies regarding education and family care.
There is a general problem in mass psychology where people sitting around a table or in their armchairs try to imagine the impact of a policy without conducting a study or looking at historical results.
"Hey, you know those rules designed to protect victims and those we are charged with supervising and protecting? Why don't we use those to punish them and protect ourselves?"
Moe previously said the policy had strong support from the majority of Saskatchewan residents and parents.
I cannot possibly express how pissed off I get at this blind adherence to majority opinion and majority rule.
The theft of Indigenous lands had the support of the majority of those with power.
The creation of the Residential School system had majority support of those with power and, by that time, the actual majority of the population.
Sometimes, the majority is false because it only includes those with power. Sometimes the majority is not just wrong but actively selfish and maybe just a little evil.
Sometimes, the only way to create a better world is to drag people kicking and screaming into it.
I don't have all the answers for how to balance minority rights against majority desires, but lots of very smart people have discussed the problem for hundreds of years and concluded that bills of rights based on the principles of inclusion and respect are a good starting point. If we are just going to toss those rights aside every time we get uncomfortable, then they are not rights, but privileges or concessions.
Ask yourself this: How would I structure the world if tomorrow I was going to be reincarnated as an infant into a community without power and grow up to be different from those around me?
It should be the other way round, with "Indigenous first" policies.
Determine what sustainability means. Set limits in a way that allows for an actual livelihood without any individual or corporation being able to monopolize the fishery while allowing for a certain amount of noncommercial use, including for subsistence. If there's anything left over, open it up to non-indingenous people using similar guidelines.
Seems straightforward to me. It's pretty typical to permit testimony from those who were directly victimized. It's also pretty typical to permit impact statements from those indirectly victimized.
So now that police have a clear connection between the original threats and the people who made those threats via the presumably real identity of the person who made the freedom of information request. This means that the investigation into the original complaint can move forward quite easily, right? Right?
Also, since when is it reasonable to keep secret the identity of those making successful freedom of information requests.
Okay, that's just scary. That just reinforces my opinion that fixing the environment, social programs, and the various rights issues are not separate battles. Effectively fighting any one of those battles requires fighting the ideologies, not the specific action. Pushing those ideologies back to the margins is the only way to stop playing whack-a-mole.
And we didn't move to anywhere from anywhere. Culture is changing, and it's changing for the better. Where it seems to be getting worse - it's always been that bad. Those people are just getting louder as they dig their heels in deeper.
This is something I've wondered about for several years now. Are some of these things actually becoming more prevalent or increasing in severity or is it like a cornered animal fighting for its life?
I think we need to be vigilant either way. Sometimes the cornered animal prevails and sometimes incipient rescue causes the victim to succumb because they think the fight is over.
Shore of Lake Diefenbaker. Ice is plentiful. Snow, not so much. We get a decent amount, then the wind and sun strips it off the hills before the next snowfall.
I was talking to someone about what we do out here in the boonies all winter. One of the things I talked about was snowshoeing. While I was talking, I realized that it's been at least a decade since I've been able to snowshoe anywhere other than on the lake after it freezes. It's not that there is never any snow in the hills, but it never lasts long enough to matter.
I was raised to understand that respecting a person's right to how they are called is not a symbol of respect, but a demonstration of respect.
While there are certainly some very big threats out there, it's my opinion that they are another expression of some of the same ideologies behind the fight against the right to be called how you want to be called. Further, it's my opinion that we cannot fight those threats without also fighting those ideologies, wherever we find them.
Where did you get that? I never accused you of being anti-trans. You accused someone of having an agenda for linking to a paper that suggests acceptance of gender identity as a means of reducing harm.
I chose my words very carefully to avoid accusing you of anything.
If you actually read that paper, you'll find that it claims evidence of children 6-7 years old starting to separate gender as identity from gender as physical appearance.
I don't think your 8 year old or any 8 year old should be worried about gender identity, which is why I don't agree with making such a big deal about gender identity claims. When it comes right down to it, I don't think anyone of any age should have any concern about anyone's gender identity other than their own. Let people of all ages alone to be who they are without judgement, condemnation, or panic.
It's not me, who is fine with whatever, who is causing any children grief over gender, but those who have their hair on fire over a world that is not quite what they expected.