University of Waterloo Limits Science Position to “Women, Transgender, Non-Binary, or Two-Spirit” Persons

Canada’s University of Waterloo is in the news this week after advertising for applications of a science position but limiting consideration to “qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, non-binary, or two-spirit.” The school’s Faculty of Environment posted an announcement seeking applications for a PhD-level scholar in “geography, earth and/or environmental science and sustainability, planning or a related discipline” who has “evidence of an active research program with emphasis on climate and/or climate change science, water science and sustainability, or future cities.”The announcement contains the usual criteria on showing promising research and ability to attract external funding. It also adds this criteria: “This call is open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, non-binary, or two-spirit.”Some may be unfamiliar with the “two-spirit” identification. The conservative site College Fix includes this description:

According to LGBTQ Health.ca, a two-spirit person is one who “identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit.” The term was coined in 1990 by Myra Laramee at the Third Annual Inter-tribal Native American, First Nations, Gay and Lesbian American Conference.

“Two-spirit” also may include “same-sex attraction and a wide variety of gender variance, including people who might be described in Western culture as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, gender queer, cross-dressers or who have multiple gender identities,” the site states.

The HRC further explains the history behind the term:

Research shows that more than 150 different pre-colonial Native American tribes acknowledged third genders in their communities. And that may have been a unifying feature of different pre-colonial cultures. …

By no means did all pre-colonial Native American communities accept or celebrate gender and sexual orientation diversity. Often when tribes were conquered, they were taken as slaves or forced to submit sexually to their conquerors. However, we also know from writings of the European colonizers that not everyone they wrote about self-identified as third gender — some of them were conquered warriors who were forced to dress femininely. Interpretations of the role and standing of Two-Spirit and third gender people varied by tribe.

Such exclusionary criteria are permitted under Section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code to “relieve hardship or economic disadvantage, help disadvantaged people or groups to achieve, or try to achieve, equal opportunity or help eliminate discrimination.”

Since individuals can “self-identify,” it is not clear if there is any level of proof that would be required for applicants. There have been past studies showing an increase in such self-identifications on applications. Students and prospective faculty are aware that diversity is weighed in such selections.

As a result, one student showed that more than a third of white students falsely claimed minority status while roughly half of applicants claimed Native American status. Most notably, 77 percent of students who lied about their race were accepted by those schools.

As discussed in an earlier column, Sen. Elizabeth Warren is the most famous example of an academic being challenged on such self-identification. Notably, when Warren claimed a small percentage of DNA possibly linking her to Native Americans, she was denounced by various groups.

The response from Native American groups who denounced Warren for using DNA to show ancestry was interesting. Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin insisted that “using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” Warren privately apologized to the tribe for using a DNA test to establish status as a Native American.

Canada has recently had its own such controversies over indigenous identifications by faculty members.

When it comes to sexual identity, there is generally no authentication or confirmation required for applicants.

65 thoughts on “University of Waterloo Limits Science Position to “Women, Transgender, Non-Binary, or Two-Spirit” Persons”

  1. In 2010 Jordan Peterson began warning about where Canada was going. He also warned us that such actions would be coming to the U.S. soon. It simply must be understood and accepted that some pigs are more equal than other pigs.

    1. On the bright side – It’s usually the fattest pigs which end up first to the slaughterhouse.

  2. Transgender spectrum, including, but not limited to homosexuals, bisexuals, neogenders, etc. They believe that they can abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too is a Democrat institution.

  3. If they need a ‘two-spirit’ to study “two-sprits” at Waterloo, who studies cannibals or worms there?

  4. Clearly discriminatory. Apparently, the last thing you want to be in this country is white, male or even worse English speaking.

  5. It depends…
    Does the person w MPD teach three different classes, each under a specific personality?
    Then yes, they should.

  6. While the announcement checks all the ESG boxes, the position will go to the candidate that can best demonstrate promising research and ability to attract external funding. Once they find their rainmaker (reality), it won’t matter how many spirits (fantasy) describes them.

  7. Women are graduating from college at higher rates, and yet we are still discriminating against men. One could argue that women are still underrepresented in STEM, but one could also argue men are underrepresented in business, health, and humanities. Why no male-only scholarships for those disciplines?

    Because once the left gets its boot on your throat, it never comes off, that’s why. It’s not about equity or helping women. It’s about the beat down.

  8. How sad and hateful that the Left has developed such ignorant and backwater criteria for their selection of professors. The Left has an evil strain of sexism and racism that has overtaken them and their party, the Dems. Vote them out.

  9. The University is going to have a real conundrum if someone applies who has a multiple personality disorder. That should be interesting on at least 3 levels. The application process and interview, The description of the professor and their interests and expertise such as what is hard science and what is “Spirit”. And lastly student evaluations may have to include an evaluation of each personality or obviously they did not attend every class. Might bring new meaning to the age old question of students “What the devil is the professor going to rant on today.” May not learn much but the entertainment value would be priceless.

    1. If a person has MPD, would the school have to pay a salary to each of the personalities? That would be a great way for a crazy person to get rich!

    2. Depends on how each personality identifies. I see a golden opportunity here to tick a lot of boxes.

  10. I identify as descending from slaves.
    As a Slav, my ancestors were the original slaves, enslaved by everyone, including Vikings, Muslims, Mongols, Romans, and more recently, Nazis and Russians. My ancestors even gave the world the word “slave”.
    I also identify as African, having descended from a small group of individuals who huddled around a campfire in South Africa 120,000 years ago.
    I dare anyone to prove me wrong and risk the accusation of being a monger of intolerance and practicing Temporal Discrimination.

  11. Well at least Turley honestly identified “The College Fix” as a conservative site. He has regurgitated a lot of articles from this site. One wonders if he is consciously raising its profile by plugging it so often to his readers.

    The founder of this site is the director of a journalism program at Hillsdale college. That speaks for itself….

    1. As we all know. When lacking the intellectual capacity to debate. Always default to ad hominem attacks.

      1. Moi? You consider pointing out that the founder works at Hillsdale is an attack on his character? I’m not aware that Hillsdale is disreputable. All I said was that his association with Hillsdale Res Ipsa Loquitur.

        1. Jeff, you believe innuendo is a good substitute for fact and accuracy. Your deep prejudice doesn’t wear well.

          1. Depends upon who is the messenger. I wouldn’t trust Trump to give me the time of day.

            1. Jeff, the messenger has absolutely zero effect on the truth or error of the message.
              That is a logic error.

              That does not mean that where we do not know what is true that we should not give more credibility to those who have a track record of truth in the past – particularly truth in the domain of the issue in question.

              If we are comparing the credibility of Trump vs. Democrats, the media, the left – Trump wins hands down.

              Trump has lots of flaws – even some that impact his credibility.
              But he still stands head and shoulders over our institutions.

              Currently Trump is the most popular politician in the country – by a significant margin.

              One of the reasons that he has such deep support – why those supporters stick with him – is that he sticks with them.
              He keeps his promises to them.

              I disagree with many of Trump’s policies – But claims like yours that Trump is untrustworthy are just stupid.

              They are YOUR typical spouting off – without knowing what you are talking about, and without even enough substance to your argument to weigh it.

              While you have been wrong so frequently – you should be required to provide citations for everything you assert.
              It would be a giant step if you were just CLEAR in what you are actually asserting.

              I will accept “Give me the time of day” as hyperbole.
              What consequential controversial issue that we can actually factually evaluate today has Trump been wrong on ?

              The left is livid that Trump kept many of his campaign promises – and even more livid that the world did not collapse when he did.

              Biden promised everything to everyone – so it is hard to measure – he lied about several things – such as his energy policy – though most of us – both left and right KNEW he was likely lying.

              Regardless, Biden has hewn left as president despite generally being centrist – and possibly even on the right for a northern democratic senator.

              I do not know whether you count that as kept promises – I guess if you are on the far left you do. Though the far left is among the most disappointed in Biden.

              If you are an independent or a moderate democrat – Biden lied through his teeth.

              But lets say that somehow you evaluate Bidens campaign promises as somehow matching what he has done – despite the fact that he made contradictory promises.

              The next major difference between Biden and Trump – is Biden has failed – he is not even 2 years in – and we are seeing a failed presidency.

              Many on the far left are abandoning Biden – because he failed – these people have warped views of reality – much like you.
              And actually beleive if Biden had just been even more radically left that magically things would have worked.
              That if we spent even more money – inflation would have gone away.

              Regardless, the fact is Biden supporters to a large extent beleive they were sold a bill of goods – unsurprising since you CANT be all things to all people. And Biden is loosing support across the political spectrum.

              It is also worth noting – that though more unpopular than Trump – Biden is still the 2nd most popular politician – he is well above generic democrats, Schumer, Pelosi, or McConnell, and McCarthy.

              1. Look Say,

                Virtually everything you state I vehemently disagree. We are just wasting each other’s time. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise, and nothing I say will persuade you to think differently.

                We are never going to see eye-to-eye. All we can do is avoid each other. Let’s not continue to argue ad nauseam. Let’s agree to disagree and ignore each other for the sake of those here who are forced to scroll through our fruitless exchanges.

    2. Jeff – Ad hominem shows a weakness of mind and argumentation. I recently visited HIllsdale and saw the most intellectual and well-educated college students that I’ve ever seen (and I’ve visited over 400 colleges). Their core curriculum combined with the intellectual rigor of the students is astounding. The students are well versed in all areas of thought and disciplines across the liberal arts. They are far more intellectual and conversant in critical thinking than almost any student I’ve seen at any Ivy, where I mostly have heard very average students for the last 5 years (though MIT students showed rigorous thinking).

      Unfortunately, the takeover of schools and colleges has created students who are inept in critical thinking and automatons reciting what their manipulating professors drill into their heads, much of it drivel. The Left has always used “re-education” to control the citizenry and that’s weakened most of our educational institutions. The 2020 vote showed that 50% of Americans actually voted for a mentally diminished, financially corrupt 79 year old from Delaware as a leader. It reflects poorly on those voters ability to discern or critically think.

      1. While I agree with you regarding the devolving of education at the college level it actually begins before that. Students come to college already “woke”, they have already become automatons to ideology and if they question or give the impression that they think for themselves they are shamed. Students are driving the administrators to “wokeness” not necessarily the other way around. But, then the admin buys into the idiocy. When Trump got elected in 2016 Amherst College offered students ‘safe spaces, therapeutic counseling, a temporary ‘petting zoo’, excuse from classes, etc. What they should have done was told them to get a grip, this is life. So, I can only assume that the devolving of education begins in the lower grades and then becomes driven by the students and then encouraged by the faculty. (as a side note I have a sister-in-law who is empathic that her children will only go to Hillsdale because of the classical nature of the education there).

      2. Where did you go to school, highly educated woman? Don’t tell us Hillsdale where the acceptance rate is an easy peasy 36%. Compare that to the Ivy League!

        1. You claim Dartmouth and demonstrate a feeble mind. You might only have a degree that tells us you were schooled, but it doesn’t tell us if you were educated.

        2. Frank Lloyd Wright – the archetypal American architect – dropped out of college and did not have a license to practice.

          Thomas Edison was home schooled.

          Albert Einstein’s “degree” was in teaching.

          My degree is in Architecture and I am a licensed and practicing architect.
          But I am also an embedded software developer, and along with only 4500 software developers in the world some of my work is in the linux Kernel.

          My wife went to UofP law school as an adult – as she commuted over an hour each day – I was her primary study partner.
          I have never met Prof. Turley, but I have met Prof. Warren, and Prof. Tribe as well as modern legal greats such as Bryan Stevenson.
          And many others you probably never heard of.

          My point is that you can not tell a book by its cover.

  12. ” . . . limiting consideration to ‘qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, non-binary, or two-spirit.’”

    Why doesn’t the university just advertise that it wants to hire a person who is delusional?

    “Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness — called a “psychosis”— in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue. [. . . ] These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.”

    https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9599-delusional-disorder

  13. Canada crossed the Rubicon long ago.

    I decided to now identify as The Batman. Anyway to change my profile here?

  14. I identify as a genius. And in my not so humble opinion, this article leads me to believe that western civilization is in major free-all. We can thank all the non-binary, LGBTQIA+ academic crowd who also identify as geniuses for the slide into the abyss. Watch say MSNBC or CNN and you will see these fools foaming at the mouth regularly.

  15. Sachem warren has shown everyone the correct way to deal with progressive discrimination.

  16. I wanted to put African American on our first childs Birth Certificate. Wife would not allow it. Major missed opportunity. I have the white male grandkids that will be denied opportunities and promotions because of the discrimination practiced by HR depts across the land.

  17. I don’t see this as exclusionary. Literally, EVERYBODY meets the requirements. In fact, to deny a person would be discriminatory

  18. Two things:
    Think about the science that will come out of a “two-spirit” person! Or any other “gender studies” type that will apply under these guidelines.

    Warren’s use of DNA was worse than the Professor alludes to in the column. Warren “used DNA” but her DNA was only something like 1/1024 NA. So her DNA actually DISPROVED her lie about being NA.

    1. hullbobby —- Please do not use all capital letters for emphasis. That is childish.
      As for 1/1024 of DNA, that indicates 10 generations back. People claim royal heritage on that amount.

      1. David Benson – you do not have time to comment. You are 224 weeks behind in getting me my citations.

      2. David, I know lefties wish to control every aspect of every life but please don’t tell me to not use capital letters for emphasis because it is MY DECISION.

        What is CHILDISH is thinking that Warren didn’t game the system, get into Harvard unjustly and take a seat that should have gone to a member of a protected class. Just because people claim royal heritage blah, blah, blah doesn’t mean a white woman can be called a minority with the end result being gaining an advantageous position.

        So hot shot, do you or do you not think that Warren was justified in claiming her fake heritage? Do you think that Liz Warren, the whitest woman on the planet, should have been called “Harvard Law’s first woman of color” as was done by the school to advance their numbers of minorities? YEs or no? If you say no it will be odd since Warren herself has apologized for doing so. But hey, you do you.

      3. Indian tribes do not recognize 1/1024th as sufficient to claim membership.

        More importantly if you are 1/1024th some “protected group” – you are not a member of that group.

        Warrne was never discriminated against because she is 1/1024th indian – no one is.

        It is likely that most of this country is 1/1024th black. Does that make me a member of a protected class ?

        Finally Warren’s DNA test did not – and can not test for membership in native american tribes.

        What was found is that genertically she was 1/1024th of something that could be cherokee, or puerto rican, or honduran or peruvian.
        Warrent claimed to be part cherokee – she specifically claimed to be 2 or 3 gnerations away from cherokee.
        Her closest relative of descent form the western hemisphere is 10 generations back – not 2-3.

        Put simply she LIED.

Leave a Reply