thedanNYC

I consider myself lucky to have friends and colleagues who are not so self-centered and narcissistic to believe that they are entitled to demand that the world learn to use made up words to refer to them. But if I ever encounter such a person, I would simply never refer to them using pronouns. I would just always refer to them by name. 

It was interesting to find this here today as I had been giving this some thought earlier in the day.  I would respect a persons choice to be referred to as they, them but I would also expect them to tolerate my not using it or using it intermittently as it is not part of the language I usually speak.  
My Spanish is quite good but I almost always say el Mano and then correct it.  With the they them situation I do find it a bit disquieting as it is not my intention to offend but it does disturb me to have to consciously consider a neutral pronoun when in almost all other circumstances I would use the gendered form easily.  Concentrating on not making that error has, on occasion, has led me to misspeak in terms of content.
I have to say, I also consider my use of  they them a bit of a shameful light, as when I first started sleeping with and going out with men, I would be in social situations in which I did not want to refer to the sex of the person with whom I was going to dinner and  would use they/them as a cover.   In fact, I would often suspect other men of being gay when I noted those men doing that as well.  

I think their language makes sense based on the explanation they gave you.
The only relevant question a lawyer knowledgeable in this area may be able to answer right now is whether that type of language is standard in that type of agreement. However, the key questions here are (A) can you live with that language and (B) if not, is UCLA willing to revise it? So I don't think I'd waste time and money consulting a specialized lawyer just yet.
Instead, I'd start by asking question B to UCLA. If they're not open to revising that clause, then you need to decide whether you want to accept their explanation and make your gift. If they are open to revising that clause, then you should think about what language you'd be willing to live with. Maybe you list alternative purposes for the scholarship in case the original purpose becomes moot (e.g., give it to people who have suffered because of 1) race discrimination, then 2) coming from a household with a family income under the poverty line, then 3) whatever the chancellor decides, taking into consideration the original purposes), maybe they should make an attempt to consult you before changing the scholarship's purpose if you're alive, etc.
And then, after you've worked through the considerations in the previous paragraph, maybe you'd benefit from working with a lawyer depending on how complex your revision to the clause would be.
Should I send you my bill in a PM? 🤑

The problem is that a baby popping out of a vajayjay can't be shown on Instagram, but a pink cloud blasting out of a cannon can be shown. Gotta have them likes!

I think their language makes sense based on the explanation they gave you.
The only relevant question a lawyer knowledgeable in this area may be able to answer right now is whether that type of language is standard in that type of agreement. However, the key questions here are (A) can you live with that language and (B) if not, is UCLA willing to revise it? So I don't think I'd waste time and money consulting a specialized lawyer just yet.
Instead, I'd start by asking question B to UCLA. If they're not open to revising that clause, then you need to decide whether you want to accept their explanation and make your gift. If they are open to revising that clause, then you should think about what language you'd be willing to live with. Maybe you list alternative purposes for the scholarship in case the original purpose becomes moot (e.g., give it to people who have suffered because of 1) race discrimination, then 2) coming from a household with a family income under the poverty line, then 3) whatever the chancellor decides, taking into consideration the original purposes), maybe they should make an attempt to consult you before changing the scholarship's purpose if you're alive, etc.
And then, after you've worked through the considerations in the previous paragraph, maybe you'd benefit from working with a lawyer depending on how complex your revision to the clause would be.
Should I send you my bill in a PM? 🤑

I think their language makes sense based on the explanation they gave you.
The only relevant question a lawyer knowledgeable in this area may be able to answer right now is whether that type of language is standard in that type of agreement. However, the key questions here are (A) can you live with that language and (B) if not, is UCLA willing to revise it? So I don't think I'd waste time and money consulting a specialized lawyer just yet.
Instead, I'd start by asking question B to UCLA. If they're not open to revising that clause, then you need to decide whether you want to accept their explanation and make your gift. If they are open to revising that clause, then you should think about what language you'd be willing to live with. Maybe you list alternative purposes for the scholarship in case the original purpose becomes moot (e.g., give it to people who have suffered because of 1) race discrimination, then 2) coming from a household with a family income under the poverty line, then 3) whatever the chancellor decides, taking into consideration the original purposes), maybe they should make an attempt to consult you before changing the scholarship's purpose if you're alive, etc.
And then, after you've worked through the considerations in the previous paragraph, maybe you'd benefit from working with a lawyer depending on how complex your revision to the clause would be.
Should I send you my bill in a PM? 🤑

The problem is that a baby popping out of a vajayjay can't be shown on Instagram, but a pink cloud blasting out of a cannon can be shown. Gotta have them likes!

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/couple-charged-with-sparking-el-dorado-fire-during-yucaipa-gender-reveal-party/

Took almost a year:
 
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (AP) — Prosecutors charge couple whose gender reveal party sparked Southern California blaze that killed firefighter last year.

They still have that departure within 3-days exception to get an appointment but unfortunately the situation is so bad now that when you choose that option they show you another screen that says this is only now for life-and-death emergencies and you must have proof of the life-or-death emergency as well as a ticket within 3 days. They wouldn't accept needing European sex as life-or-death. 😕
 
No office has Urgent Travel (Non-Emergency) appointments available now. 
 

This might help:

 

You can always call and ask. In NY, it's hard to get short-notice appointments. But you can also show up before a certain time (7 a.m. if I remember correctly) with a ticket leaving within X days (I seem to recall it's 3) and get in a special line. They process a certain number of applications from people in that line and give them their passports that same day if leaving the next day, otherwise the following day.
I had to do that a few years ago. I was there around 5 a.m. and was #3 line. By 7 a.m., the end of the line was in New Jersey.

This might help:

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2021/07/easing-border-measures-for-fully-vaccinated-travellers-entering-canada---permitting-discretionary-travel-for-citizens-and-permanent-residents-of-th.html 
Canada isn't just throwing open the door to Americans....have to provide proof of vaccination, testing, and other contact tracing information after arrival.

Got any miles to spare for that cheap ticket?

Pics or it didn't happen.

They actually expected the market to be the same in Berlin as it is in Zurich? That's so interesting to me. Not even the price of water is comparable in those two cities.

Riiiiight...can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Drag him, @JoeMendoza! 😛

is this because people a decade or so ago started handing out participation trophies to everybody and nobody learned the concept of winning and losing?

Got any miles to spare for that cheap ticket?

Pics or it didn't happen.

They actually expected the market to be the same in Berlin as it is in Zurich? That's so interesting to me. Not even the price of water is comparable in those two cities.

It all depends where your cruise ship takes you. If in frigid waters, being able to swim or wearing a Lifejacket won't help as you will die of hypothermia in a short while. That is why most fishermen in Newfoundland don't know how to swim.
On the other hand, if you are in sunny climes, you may want to know how to swim. But then you would have to worry about the sharks so maybe even there it would be better to drown quickly.😒

I wouldn’t call the environment "inclusive".
Nonetheless, I’ve taken several Atlantis cruises and I never had anyone treat me rudely.
Body shaming and ageism is rampant everywhere, but if you really just don’t care, it’s easy to ignore and have fun.
It’s no different than every other "gay party boy" event or place I been to over the years. It you want to hang out with the pretty boys and the muscle Mary’s (god only knows why you would) then you better be one yourself. No big surprise there. If being around them bothers you, I’d suggest avoiding these events in general. 
I was on a gay ski trip not too long ago. Loads of fun. Everyone playful and polite. One gentleman in his 70’s got seriously butt hurt that the 20 year olds in the group didn’t seem to want to ski with him. Over cocktails I asked him…."Seriously dude, when you were 20, did you want to ski with 70 year olds? The kids are polite and fun, but they’re kids. Let them be kids." I offered to ski with him the next day, and he rudely declined. I stopped trying to help and had a great ski trip.