Or, Angry Man Is Angry.

With Hallowe’en approaching, I thought I’d lift this from the comments:

World’s number 1 Harry Potter fan. https://t.co/uo4pz7GAl9

— Gay Not Queer (@Gaynotqueer1) October 26, 2026

Lest it be unclear, J. K. Rowling doesn’t in fact “pass anti-trans legislation.” She isn’t funding “genocide.” She’s not “murdering” anyone, except perhaps rhetorically, and she’s not “killing children.”

And you’re not a woman, sir.

And those claims of “human rights” that are allegedly being crushed are just another fabrication, another attempt to deceive. As Wesley Yang puts it,

Regarding the impassioned scene above, Clam asked,

Well, indeed. Our cross-dressing chappie, the one barking instructions, is not, I fear, making a compelling case. Or eliciting anything approaching sympathy.

He’s just a man with mood-control issues who casually tells lies about others and himself, and who evidently likes to scold his imagined audience, on a holiday for children, for daring to have priorities of their own, even down to what kind of Hallowe’en costume he thinks they should be allowed to wear.

The lippy doesn’t hide his fundamental obnoxiousness.

So, in that sense, he has made himself “abundantly fucking clear.” Though he doesn’t seem to realise exactly what has been revealed.

To some extent, I think he and other maladjusted bullies exploit the assumption that you should want to be, and want to be seen to be, friends with everyone. In solidarity with everything. At least everything fashionable. As if that would be possible. Which is rather silly.

Update, via the comments:

The “ow, my human rights” lie is especially pernicious, another attempt at emotional manipulation by people who find such activities exciting. Which is to say, habitual manipulators.

And while I’ve illustrated, say, the changing rooms issue many times, quite vividly, the issue to which I take strongest exception personally is this:

I mean, if a man with fake breasts harangues you about how your child wearing a wizard costume for Hallowe’en results in “genocide,” then I think it’s safe to assume that the person doing the haranguing is coming unspooled and does not mean well. A safe distance seems in order.

To submit to the demands of such creatures, which will never end – to lie as instructed and thereby become absurd, to throw away your probity and assume a posture of fearful dishonesty – seems both unwise and morally grotesque.

It’s just a tad insulting.

Because some things bear repeating, a few items from the archives:

No Black Lights Were Available.

New York Times contributor racially agonised by pedestrian crossing.

A Cunning Ruse.

Cross-dressing man, 27, enrols at school as fifteen-year-old girl.

Brown Science.

At the University of Colorado, brownness has magical properties.

We’re Here To Care About You.

Purging racial trauma with bedtime hugging and intergenerational wrestling.

For those craving more, this is a pretty good place to start.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

At risk of sounding old fashioned, if I were a parent and my child were being suspended with such regularity, I’d have questions about their behaviour.

I mean, if my child behaved in such a way as to result in their being suspended no fewer than thirty-seven times, I think I might be embarrassed, perhaps even ashamed. I don’t think I’d regard it as an obvious basis for a political flex or an air of self-righteousness.

While trying to deny other parents a chance to get their own children the hell away from kids like mine.

Lifted from the comments, which you’re reading, of course.

The new guy looks pretty chill. || Ostrich stomach contents, 1930. (h/t, Things) || In search of peanut butter. || It was that heavy beer. || “Like a belt full of pre-filled condoms.” || How to throw a house party, 1966. || I expect you to start body popping on the count of three. || Interactive duckpond, into which you can throw peas. Headphones recommended. || Full thrust. || Fun times. || Riker time. || Regarding travel, enrichment and states of denial. || “Fluid beef,” dispensed from a lamp post, 1897. || Learning curve. || Learning curve 2. || Place your bets. || Cutting hair. || Cartwheeling snakes. || It was the custom in those days. (h/t, Dicentra) || More enrichment underway. || How well do immigrants do? A handy database. || Dr Fukushi Masaichi collected human skin. || It’s modernity, baby.

To enable extra commenting options – including @username mentions, comment editing, upvotes, custom avatars, and live notifications – scroll down to the black ‘Meta’ box at the very bottom of the page and click register. It’s free and quite painless.

For additional rumblings, follow me on X.

Colin Wright and Andrew Hartz eavesdrop on a gathering of the American Psychological Association:

Always a sign of mental wellbeing.

Ms Lewis’ tugging on the intersectional crack pipe has been touched on before.

As when telling us, quite emphatically and with occasional chuckling, that abortion, via drugs or dismemberment, is a corrective killing, a righteous “unmaking.” A means of “going on strike against gestational work.” Says she, “We need to move away from… arguments around when human life begins.”

Which sounds terribly convenient for those with sociopathic leanings.

Today’s words, since you ask, are ideological capture.

Or whether their licensed therapist is himself unhinged.

Well, I suppose the ostensible job, listening to the outpourings of unhappy people, is much less exciting than pretending that you’re radical and heroic, the star of the drama. Say, by denouncing the imprisonment of carjackers and gang bangers as “systemic racist inequality,” and deploying the word “white” as a go-to pejorative. That kind of thing.

Hence the APA electing as its next president Candice Hargons, who uses the term “womxn” entirely without embarrassment and rails against “systemic intersectional oppression.” And whose list of things to be righteously dismantled and entirely done away with includes attempts at verification and objectivity. Such details presumably being obstacles to her own monomaniacal politics.

Update, via the comments:

EmC quotes this,

And adds,

Well, you’d think that supposed experts in psychology might show some interest in the extent to which politicisation of this kind – making everything a vehicle for leftist posturing – is a self-flattering, self-exalting exercise. One in which the self-styled activist is conveniently foregrounded as some heroically radical being. A cosmically important creature.

But no. Seems not.

Consider this an open thread.