They also depend on toilets that are cleaned by janitors, should we call them "sanitation engineers"?
The key is that if it requires some sort of certification, as Canada claims it does, then it should be a modifier/adjective on the title like "certified janitor" or "licensed engineer".
Just claiming an existing single common noun as an exclusive term belonging to your organization is clearly an untenable position. If you have to keep reminding everyone that they're infringing on your trademark all the time by using a common word, you've already lost.
A long time ago in Paris the street sweepers were euphemistically called "surface engineering technicians" (paraphrasing from the French "technicien de surface", but I think this is close enough)...
I think that's a bit harder to replace than it is to clean a dirty toilet. Presumably the professional engineers can clean their own toilet if absolutely necessary.
Engineering was a thing before software.
The group that wants to protect or maintain ownership of the word "engineer" is dependent upon the people whom it objects to also using that title.
The core concepts which make engineering engineering? Yeah.
>The group that wants to protect or maintain ownership of the word "engineer" is dependent upon the people whom it objects to also using that title.
They are as dependent on software as any other institution, on a day-to-day basis, which have transitioned to computerized automation over the last ~60 years. Software aids efficiency.
The argument that engineers are incapable of designing and constructing sound solutions without software is unsound.
Name one modern feat of engineering which could be done without the aid of software.
Commercial airliner? Nope. Modern skyscraper? Nope. Modern CPU? Nope.
Modern bridge? Maybe; but without structural analysis and stress simulations, it's going to use more material and be rated lower.
I'm done arguiung. It's clear that there's always some meritless retort waiting.