In respect to DanBintheUnderworld, I'd like to add something.

Harvey is a hero of mine.

He dressed as a clown, making people smile, and gave out balloons to people during a very hard economical time for 'people on the street', and he did this for everybody, regardless of sexual or racial identity.

something that sjw's have provably forgotten.

Sometimes, sociological concerns are presented as political concerns, because the sociological urge feeds the political action, or political statement, or political post.

Yet the sociological is-what-it-is, apart-and-separate from the political-expression.

The conflation of the sociological with the political, and the heated cortisol-fueled emotions posted afterwards, is part-and-parcel of why, IMO, many politics threads on many sites have to be locked. Though on some sites (not this one), they are merely locked (followed by even-handed people being banned) to 'tow-a-party-line'.

Confessor spoke of how maybe potential members here, female potential members, may not have joined due to the Sexy Covers thread...

The same can be said of many potential female (and non-cis) members not joining 'other comics boards' because they don't wish to be beholden to 'knee-jerk, over-the-top-to-get-attention, hyperbolic' pseudo-gender-politics-shenannigans.

And why, these days, people claiming to be 'inclusive' are actually 'divisive' and violent towards those attempting to me 'inclusive', and non-violent, anti-violence, as per Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., and Harvey Milk.

I have no problem with referring to people as "Mxyzptlk", as you aptly put, if they do so desire. I think it's just basic politeness to call people by the name or pronoun they want me to use. What ruffles my feather is the legal obligation to get a pronoun right, associated with the "hate crime" label if I fail to do so.

I perused the statements of our Liberal MPs on the issue (that's the Liberal party, not necessarily all MPs leaning left). I was honestly dismayed by their shameless pandering to an interest group, certainly, but mostly by their use of the term "transphobic" applied to those who voted against bill C-16. As the Will Farell meme says, "boy, that escalated quickly".

The whole issue has created the concept of an entire spectrum of gender identities, one that is now essentially dissociated from an individual's sex. The matter is psychologically interesting, but in parallel to serious studies on the matter we also have what is clearly a fad; a fad that claims just about anything can be described as a gender identity (hence the very amusing joke about the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter being a valid one). I find it deplorable that going beyond the self-evident position that discrimination against anyone based on anything else than their actions should be illegal, my government seems to adopt that fad whole-heartedly, wrapping itself in a big mantle of virtue with a maple leaf on it.

It is not transphobia to think that the mandatory adoption of umpteen different pronouns to reflect the umpteen different self-attributed new genders in that spectrum is both unmanageable and a source of irritation in the rest of the population. A spectrum is usually defined by its extremes and sometimes by its middle; the English language already has pronouns to cover these possibilities: "she-they-he". Any other pronoun added to the lot should be handled not by the legal system, but just like any other grammatical addition, by common use. "Ms." is not a term that was imposed; it was introduced, and people either used it or not, depending on the wishes of individual. It was not (or I suppose it was not, I haven't checked) deemed a sexist crime to call a woman "Mrs." or "Miss" before she corrected us to say "Ms." It would be grotesque if using "he" to describe a person with a beard became a crime. It would just generate anger toward the population the law is meant to protect.

I agree, Wildfire, and seeing my kids graduate from the modern school system I can see how the best of intentions (to protect children from unpleasantness) completely backfired by turning a lot of them into constant victims. It also taught them, much to my chagrin, that self-reliance is something to be frowned upon.

Anecdote time, even if anecdotes don't prove anything.

A dozen years ago, a friend's kid, the sweetest little boy you can imagine, was in something like second of third grade. As in every school in the province (and, I imagine, the country), the school was plastered with posters extolling the virtue of discussion and negociation in the resolution of conflicts. (Whoever came up with those messages never faced a schoolyard bully, I am sure). 

So, getting back to the kid. One of his own buddies was called a bad name and a shouting match ensued. My friend's kid took the side of his pal and when shoved he shoved back, causing his opponent to (get this...) fall on his rump. That's when a teacher intervened, but since we live in the XXI century the teacher didn't just bellow "hey, kids! break that up immediately!" The teacher took my friend's kid to the principal's office, where he didn't get a lecture on how it's wrong to push another kid so that he falls on his butt; no, he got an official letter, to be signed by the parents, warning that if his antisocial behaviour did not cease immediately, he would be subjected to disciplinary measures that could go as fas as his being thrown out of school. 

No joke. That really happened. To the sweetest kid imaginable, who just tried to stand by a friend against a very low-level aggression. I swear, it's as if Stalin was in charge, but a Stalin wearing pink goggles and a carebear shirt.

This is also the kind of school where kids aren't allowed to chase after each other in the schoolyard, or play king of the mountain in winter. Cops and robbers is also forbidden. It's considered "violent".

What are we teaching kids? We're not protecting them from the deep, deep trauma of being thrown off a snowbank. We're not protecting them from the fact that violence does exist in the world. We're not even protecting them from bullies, because bullies will always find a way; if they can't pick on you openly, they'll do it discreetly, and you're not allowed to defend yourself. What we are telling children, however, is that the system is rigged against them, and that any attempt to stand for themselves will be met with punishment. (Oh, I'm sorry... punishment doesn't exist anymore, as it's a bad word... I meant "consequence". Singular, even, just so it's more ridiculous).

I remember the schoolyard of fourty years ago. There were bullies back then, too. Fights were usually broken up by a teacher, and both parties were brought to the school's principal  who would give an ineffectual sermon. The sermon was part of a ritual, but didn't really matter; what really mattered was that after the initial (and usually disastrous) first fight, we'd quickly learn to get over the humiliation, learn to stand for ourselves, and learn to take a punch. I never saw a bully continue picking on someone who fought back; bullies prefer easy victims.

Does that mean we should let the little savages have a go at each other? No, that's not what I mean; but instead of trying to pretend that the world is not a hard and often cruel place, we should teach them how to defend themselves... and ideally how to stand up for those who aren't as strong as they are. Teaching martial arts to kids, I was always very happy to see the shy and quiet ones gain confidence, and learn not only to hit (which is easy) but to take a hit without feeling emotionally wrecked. Likewise, the few bullies who learn discipline and self-control are a source of great satisfaction.

Not that I want the victims of bullies to go all ninja on their persecutors either! But the self-confidence that comes with having been in a fight, even a controlled one with rules and everything, makes one better able to handle the emotional stress of being picked upon. Usually it means one can meet insult with insult, or with assured dignity if one is really sure of oneself. No need for actual violence, but as Ghandi said, you can't claim to be non-violent if you can't defend yourself at all. 

It doesn't work with everyone, but it is my firm convinction that exposing kids to unpleasantness in a controlled environment will do much more for their development than keeping them wrapped in cotton and then release them into a Big World that has no intention of respecting their "specialness" and inner beauty of whatever.

In as much as it's the right-wing insult de jure and in as much as they habitually whine and cry like nobody's business I love throwing it in their face.  

As to the bulk of your post...I find t to be stereotyping of the highest order.  And like most stereotypes, I find it pretty inaccurate.  

First, the current generation of children didn't ask for the participation ribbons, trophies, etc.  If they are, in fact, actually getting them in extremis.  So if we're going to put blame, let's put blame on the parents who gave them out in the first place.  Boomers and X'ers, step right up for your shaming.  You decided to give out the "awards" so you could feel better about little Johnny and Janie.  

I really see no signs that the current generation are any more prone to believing they're special than any other generation.  In many ways it's the opposite because they, by and large, recognize that previous generations have screwed up the economy and the environment to a point where they're going to suffer.  

These are the exact same complaints that your parents and grandparents had about the kids nowadays with their long hair and their bell-bottom trousers and their Moby Grape.  The Boomers have, by and large, become Grandpa Simpson and the X'ers are doing their best to follow along. 

It's maybe possible that it's not actually "hip" to be LGBetc. but that people can actually express their true self without, as much, fear of being shunned, beaten and killed.  

1: yes, but that's not how 'snowflake' began.  just like other such descriptives began differently and either 'evolved' or 'devolved' ['queer', as a term, evolved].

2:  i refer you to the term 'twink' which has been used by queer pundits in arguments for AND against queer marriage by noteworthy queerfolk of non anglo derivation such as Ben Law/Benjamin Law

3:  the people whom put Felarca into the position she holds now.

more later.

I deal or interact with so-called Millennials on a fairly regular basis as part of my job hosting open mic nights and I agree that, based on my experience with that age group in that setting, there's little or no evidence that they're really any different to my generation (X'ers) when we were their age.

However, my wife works in the London office of a really big civil engineering company -- an American company actually -- and they have speacially trained personnel, whose job it is to ease Millenials into the workplace because their expectations of working life are so completely out of whack with reality. My wife works in HR and she says that the unrealistic expectations of this age group is a very real challenge for her department. Talking to her, it doesn't appear that this is unique to her company either, but something that is becoming increasingly common in large multinational companies.

So, I think there must be something in the notion that Millenials have been spoilt, overly pampered and molly coddled throughout their schooling, to the point where they're quite unprepared for adult life. Especially if large multinationals are spending money on staff whose job it is to deal with them when they first enter the workplace.