ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[tomh009]

ML? Metrolinx?

[Pheidippides]

Thank-you to Kevin for all the updates.
 
I would like ask one thing of everyone though.
 
In the spirit of equity please do not to refer to the LRVs, or any inanimate object, as “her” or “she,” and instead choose a gender-neutral pronoun such as “it” or “they.”
 
Using “her” or “she” is oppressive and implies that women in general are not people, but objects to be owned, manipulated, and disposed of like objects, and are somehow inferior to men. Equating women with objects literally objectifies strips them of their humanity and implies dispensability. Furthermore, there is an assertion of power in the use of a female pronoun for an object. Using a female pronoun asserts dominance over the object, therefore dominance over women, and equating inferiority with the female gender. 

Moreover, This underlying message in our language is reflective of how our society treats women. Our language clearly reflects a larger issue. Women are seen as objects to be controlled, bought, driven, or used.
 
Finally, proper modern English does not assign gender to inanimate objects  (MLA, AP, Chicago, etc.)
 
It may seem innocent, but language matters, and it is important to be an ally and recognize that patriarchy is so deeply rooted and commonplace in our language that it contributes to asserting dominance of one gender over another (MANager, fireMAN, chairMAN, MANkind, MANpower, dissemination, etc.).

Thank-you!

[Rainrider22]

Thank-you to Kevin for all the updates.
 
I would like ask one thing of everyone though.
 
In the spirit of equity please do not to refer to the LRVs, or any inanimate object, as “her” or “she,” and instead choose a gender-neutral pronoun such as “it” or “they.”
 
Using “her” or “she” is oppressive and implies that women in general are not people, but objects to be owned, manipulated, and disposed of like objects, and are somehow inferior to men. Equating women with objects literally objectifies strips them of their humanity and implies dispensability. Furthermore, there is an assertion of power in the use of a female pronoun for an object. Using a female pronoun asserts dominance over the object, therefore dominance over women, and equating inferiority with the female gender. 

Moreover, This underlying message in our language is reflective of how our society treats women. Our language clearly reflects a larger issue. Women are seen as objects to be controlled, bought, driven, or used.
 
Finally, proper modern English does not assign gender to inanimate objects  (MLA, AP, Chicago, etc.)
 
It may seem innocent, but language matters, and it is important to be an ally and recognize that patriarchy is so deeply rooted and commonplace in our language that it contributes to asserting dominance of one gender over another (MANager, fireMAN, chairMAN, MANkind, MANpower, dissemination, etc.).

Thank-you!

Wow.  Please save the lecture and life lessons

[KevinT]

I used it as a term of affection because I'm a huge fan, and none of the alternates you propose would convey that. Further commentary self censored, as it would not be relevant to this thread.

[Canard]

Kevin is one of the most sensitive and proactive and supportive people for equal rights you will ever meet. He’s too humble to say it, so I will for him. I can guarantee you he meant no ill will.

I on the other hand call them “him” because they look like big peeners.

[Canard]

ML? Metrolinx?

Yes. As of a few months ago they hadn’t completed the in-cab signaling component that fits in the hole in the dash. Scary stuff.

[Pheidippides]

How has GrandLinq been handling snow removal on the rapidway along Ottawa? Have they been completely removing the snow or have the home owners had to do it themselves? Or just drive through/over the snow on the rapidway to get out of their driveways?

[timio]

I saw a bobcat with a brush attachment clearing the rapidway near GRH last week, so I imagine it would be similar.

[Rainrider22]

Kevin is one of the most sensitive and proactive and supportive people for equal rights you will ever meet. He’s too humble to say it, so I will for him. I can guarantee you he meant no ill will.

I on the other hand call them “him” because they look like big peeners.

now that is funny   we have to laugh at ourselves sometimes

[urbd]

Thank-you to Kevin for all the updates.
 
I would like ask one thing of everyone though.
 
In the spirit of equity please do not to refer to the LRVs, or any inanimate object, as “her” or “she,” and instead choose a gender-neutral pronoun such as “it” or “they.”
 
Using “her” or “she” is oppressive and implies that women in general are not people, but objects to be owned, manipulated, and disposed of like objects, and are somehow inferior to men. Equating women with objects literally objectifies strips them of their humanity and implies dispensability. Furthermore, there is an assertion of power in the use of a female pronoun for an object. Using a female pronoun asserts dominance over the object, therefore dominance over women, and equating inferiority with the female gender. 

Moreover, This underlying message in our language is reflective of how our society treats women. Our language clearly reflects a larger issue. Women are seen as objects to be controlled, bought, driven, or used.
 
Finally, proper modern English does not assign gender to inanimate objects  (MLA, AP, Chicago, etc.)
 
It may seem innocent, but language matters, and it is important to be an ally and recognize that patriarchy is so deeply rooted and commonplace in our language that it contributes to asserting dominance of one gender over another (MANager, fireMAN, chairMAN, MANkind, MANpower, dissemination, etc.).

Thank-you!

Wow.  Please save the lecture and life lessons

No. Don't save the life lessons Pheidippides... this is a discussion forum on the internet where we should be welcome to discuss things, and how language has an impact on society is a great topic - and this was very much on point in how it was related to the LRV.

[tomh009]

It may seem innocent, but language matters, and it is important to be an ally and recognize that patriarchy is so deeply rooted and commonplace in our language that it contributes to asserting dominance of one gender over another (MANager, fireMAN, chairMAN, MANkind, MANpower, dissemination, etc.).

"Manager" has the letters "M", "A" and "N" so it may seem a masculine origin, but that's actually a false assumption.  It has the same roots as "manual" -- hand ("manus" in Latin).

From Wikipedia:

The English verb "manage" comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle, especially tools or a horse), which derives from the two Latin words manus (hand) and agere (to act).

[robdrimmie]

Thank-you to Kevin for all the updates.
 
I would like ask one thing of everyone though.
 
In the spirit of equity please do not to refer to the LRVs, or any inanimate object, as “her” or “she,” and instead choose a gender-neutral pronoun such as “it” or “they.”
 
Using “her” or “she” is oppressive and implies that women in general are not people, but objects to be owned, manipulated, and disposed of like objects, and are somehow inferior to men. Equating women with objects literally objectifies strips them of their humanity and implies dispensability. Furthermore, there is an assertion of power in the use of a female pronoun for an object. Using a female pronoun asserts dominance over the object, therefore dominance over women, and equating inferiority with the female gender. 

Moreover, This underlying message in our language is reflective of how our society treats women. Our language clearly reflects a larger issue. Women are seen as objects to be controlled, bought, driven, or used.
 
Finally, proper modern English does not assign gender to inanimate objects  (MLA, AP, Chicago, etc.)
 
It may seem innocent, but language matters, and it is important to be an ally and recognize that patriarchy is so deeply rooted and commonplace in our language that it contributes to asserting dominance of one gender over another (MANager, fireMAN, chairMAN, MANkind, MANpower, dissemination, etc.).

Thank-you!

Thank you for posting this. I agree completely, but didn't feel confident in my status in the community to make the request.

[chutten]

Hard agree on how language matters.

Maybe it's all this Arctic air, but it has me wondering whether there are any adverse conditions that our LRVs won't be able to handle. Running them through a snowstorm to keep the rails clear is one thing, but that doesn't get the snow off the top of the cab. And I imagine a centimetre of ice on the doors will cause problems, though storing the unmoving ones indoors and heating the moving ones might make that moot.

Are we going to have a "it's too sunny for trains" problem like GO occasionally does? Too windy?

[tomh009]

Or the "wrong sort of leaves" problem?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/r...ality.html

[KevinL]

Any railway can suffer buckling in high heat, but I believe ours has been engineered and will be monitored to keep the possibility to a minimum.

I don't know quite so much about our leaf control systems, but I trust something is in hand there as well.