Tuesday, September 22, 2026

The Ravine

The intervening distance from my downtown vacation unit to south Edmonton, where the Fringe Festival is held, looked to be a manageable five kilometres on the map. I decided to take my time and walk. A lush green corridor connecting the city centre to Old Strathcona evocatively called the Mill Creek Ravine invited a long, sedate stroll through the trees. 

It is aptly named; it is indeed a ravine with a creek, upon which there was once an old mill. It is thus also whence Edmonton's resident mosquito population emanates. I spent most of my relaxing stroll swinging, swatting, and fleeing from twisting proto-swarms of airborne parasites, emerging out the other end of the trail blood supply intact but pressure thereof decidedly elevated.

But worse than this—and completely inescapable—was, from the rolling gardens of the Muttart Conservatory all the way down into the bottom of the ravine, from across the Saskatchewan River, the non-stop Edmonton marathon. Not the runners—the tannoy. The public address system. The loudspeaker announcing garbled sounds to the surrounding two mile radius. 

These things are an abomination! I've written before about them ruining the Islamic call to prayer in Turkey. 

From the downtown high ground of the marathon route, ineluctable, incomprehensible, echoic quivering blather radiated in every direction, including across the river parkland and into the ravine. Amplified babbling, glossolalised over distance by interference patterns rendering anything that was ever intelligible a warbly vocal spaghetti, piping up time and again upon yet another crossing of the line by a runner a mile away to interrupt that otherwise empty silence and awful peace of humming insects and occasional tweeting songbirds in the quiet summer air. BLWAPPA CLOWPAPARAP ARAPAP.

Umpire Tannoy, why do we need to do this? The people who care about what you're saying are all gathered at the same spot—where you are. Hearing it beyond the immediate visibility of the finish line is pointless. 

Why can't we reinstate the unamplified speaking trumpet? The 1930s Hollywood megaphone through which the director would command "action!" on his set? It needs no batteries and reaches everyone who needs to know and no one else.

Amplified sound is a modern bane. In the 2020s, it's the handheld Bluetooth speaker. In the 1980s, it was the ghetto blaster. It has been de rigeur in nightclubs from the 1970s until today to crank the volume to ten, to maximise the noise. Bigger is better, right? Music at the volume of jet aircraft. 

It's a societal obsession with technology and its ever unfulfilled empty promise to "improve" our lives. The pursuit of it obscures the problem trying to be solved. We are enslaved by our own devices.

How horrified Early Man swatting mosquitoes in a ravine would be, looking up from their hunting and gathering, to see what their world had become. Modernity has much to answer for in robbing the world of peace and quiet.

Wednesday, September 02, 2026

Gender in Edmonton

I'm in Edmonton for the International Fringe Festival, the largest in North America and second in size after the (enormous) Edinburgh Fringe. Since recently discovering improv and stage performance myself, I'm fully invested in the form as a new creative direction and have come to the festival to seek it out.

The annual Fringe Festival is a pretty big summer tourist draw for Edmonton, which might not otherwise be all that captivating a city. It's pretty enough, bisected by the Saskatchewan River, but without the Fringe I'd probably see all that's worth seeing inside a couple of days. For the Fringe I'm here over a week, in which time I'll see twenty-one shows.

I bought a transit card as I arrived at the airport and registered it online so I could top it up. The registration requires a few mandatory details, such as name, email address... and gender. 

Gender? It's a transit card; what could there possibly be to distinguish men's transit style from women's? This isn't 1965; asking for gender de rigeur on clerical forms long ago lost social acceptability. Irrelevantly requesting gender had, in the 70s & 80s, rightly been bumped off in the spirit of equality. What has happened? 

Ah... but they're being "socially conscious," aren't they? The choices are not M/F. The selection (remember, mandatory) is comprehensive:

  • Woman
  • Man
  • Non-binary
  • Transgender
  • Two-Spirit
  • Another
  • No Answer
  • Unspecified

Eight choices. Because identity politics permits us to return to 1965. If we track what you are then we can discriminate between you. "You're a Transgender; why do you use transit?" Not only is it offensive to ask in the first place, but it is pointless; the absurdity of the choices insults the intelligence. 

What is the transit-relevant difference between "Transgender" and "Non-binary"? Not the health differences of intersex or the social differences of identity or the psychological differences between them; I want to know what is the transit-related difference. What is it? 

What value is there in collecting—as mandatory—the answer "Another" vs "Unspecified"? 

I have no issue identifying myself on an appropriate form as a Man, but I could not entertain this question. I submitted "No Answer".

Let me be clear. I have no horse in this race, but I'm a civil liberties advocate and have always fought for the equal rights of everyone in society, which equality inevitably means tending to those in minority, including those identifying by gender. The primary guidance is that they should not be discriminated against.

Why doesn't this transit form ask for the religion of the card holder? Where are the choices:

  • Jew
  • Muslim
  • Christian
  • Hindu
  • Buddhist
  • Other?

The transit company doesn't ask because society wouldn't abide that information being collected for a transit pass. It would appear discriminatory; why would religion need tracking? If this were America, I'd be concerned about ICE pulling that data. Putting certain information on a database is profiling, and that can be abused.

So why should gender be treated any differently?

Identity politics is a double-edged sword. To name things creates awareness, but labels discriminate. It's a minefield that those who wield don't understand.