(LifeSiteNews) — A couple of weeks ago, I made the mistake of turning on the news on my car radio. It was the CBC, and a panel was discussing Canada’s housing crisis. According to the experts brought on by the CBC, this crisis was accompanied by a shortage in tradesmen, and this shortage was in part due to the fact that construction sites were hostile environments for women and “non-binary people.” This, the panel opined, was a huge problem that needed to be fixed. It reminded me that the salaries of Canadian tradesmen are garnished to pay for this garbage.
Listening to the panel, it struck me how out of touch progressive activists are with the reality of what they would call the “lived experience” of most normal people working normal, blue-collar jobs. Anyone who has worked on a construction site knows that enforcing political correctness – especially the swiftly moving Overton Window of acceptable speech these days – is a fool’s errand. Attempting to police the way men talk to one another on a job site is a great way to ensure hostility from said men, who incidentally have jobs to do.
READ: Australian archbishop accused of ‘hate speech’ for defending Catholic teaching on gender, abortion
But progressives don’t seem to understand that most people simply trying to make a living aren’t interested in being hectored about their insufficiently up-to-date views on however many genders the Canadian establishment currently believes in. Case in point is a recent column in the Globe and Mail sounding the alarm about a new Canadian travesty: “Non-binary job applicants are less likely to receive interest from employers if they disclose gender-neutral pronouns on their resume, according to a recent working paper.”
According to University of Toronto economics Ph.D. candidate Taryn Eames in a paper titled “TARYN VERSUS TARYN (SHE/HER) VERSUS TARYN (THEY/THEM): A Field Experiment on Pronoun Disclosure and Hiring Discrimination,” employers appear to be discriminating against “non-binary” Canadians. As Eames says in her abstract:
Thousands of randomly generated, fictitious resumes were submitted to job postings in pairs where the treatment resume contained pronouns listed below the name and the control resume did not. Two treatments were considered: nonbinary ‘they/them’ and binary ‘he/him’ or ‘she/her’ pronouns congruent with implied sex. As such, I estimate discrimination against nonbinary and presumed cisgender applicants who disclose pronouns. Results show that nonbinary applicants face discrimination: disclosing ‘they/them’ pronouns reduces positive employer response by 5.4 percentage points. There is also evidence that discrimination is larger (approximately double) in Republican than Democratic geographies, potentially reflecting attitudinal differences. By comparison, results are inconclusive as to whether presumed cisgender applicants who disclose pronouns are discriminated against.
In her paper, Eames states that there is “strong evidence of discrimination against applicants who disclose nonbinary ‘they/them’ pronouns,” and, like the CBC panel, announces that this is a problem that needs to be solved. “Non-binary gender identities are becoming more and more common, especially among younger generations,” she said. “These people are going to be aging into the labour force, and this is going to become a bigger and bigger topic over time.”
The Globe and Mail attempts, sloppily, to tie this study to parental rights policies in New Brunswick and elsewhere, as well as implying that Alberta’s proposal to ban sex change surgeries for minors are also part of an anti-trans trend that is “trickling down” into the workplace. “Even in situations where a hiring manager is open to hiring a non-binary employee, there may be perceived obstacles,” the Globe and Mail stated. “Customer-service positions, for instance, an employer might have concerns about how they will manage situations that can arise from employing a non-binary person.”
The reporters assume, of course, that “non-binary” – that is, claiming to be neither male nor female – is a real identity that should be accepted by every employer and all of society at large. The assumption is that there is no debate over this recently invented identity category whatsoever, and that the task at hand is to find ways of forcing employers to proactively affirm the assertions of LGBT activists. They apparently do not stop to consider the fact that many employers simply want to do business and not be forced into cooperating with an ideology that they are ambivalent about.
