Admit it, your mind went there. || Meet the girls. || Houseguest of note. || Turns out it could go either way. || Quite the grip. || Good to know. || Greetings, fellow women. || Sudden weight gain. || The woodpecker’s tongue. || The Great Chicken War. (h/t, Mark) || Repeat after him. || I have questions, but I hesitate to ask. || Coaster skillz. || Cloaking device. || Eurocrash. || Rainbow. || Beats and blobs, together at last. || Bold strategy. || At least she put down the baby. || The progressive dining experience, a possible series. || Incoming. || Incoming 2. || Vein viewer. || Vending issues. || This is one of these. || On being obliged to compete unfairly: “You kind of, like, smile when you’re uncomfortable.” || And finally, one of the things that dogs can’t do, at least, not terribly well.

Should you be tempted, you can follow me on Twitter.

In the comments, John draws attention to this item from Personnel Today, a publication for the inhabitants of HR departments, regarding recruitment criteria for the Royal Air Force:

I’m assuming, perhaps charitably, that the word “useless” was with reference to meeting “diversity” targets. The word in question was deployed by former head of recruitment Elizabeth Nicholl, who resigned in protest at such targets being “impossible” to achieve. But still, an unhappy phrasing.

Much of the article covers ground that may be familiar to regular readers:

Because brownness and womb-having are much more important, obviously.

At which point, I’m tempted to ask how these target percentages relate to any actual expressed interest or aptitude – say, among school-leavers – or to any tactical utility, according to which an unusually high number of women and racial minorities would somehow confer a military advantage. Or are they, as seems to be the case, entirely arbitrary?

The paragraph immediately above was posted as a comment on the Personnel Today website. It was held for moderation, then disappeared.

Update, via the comments:

TomJ notes the proliferation throughout the RAF of pointedly gender-neutral terms, along with the ensuing complications, adding: “These are but annoyances, though they no doubt absorbed a lot of admin effort that could have been better directed… It now seems somewhat indicative.” Indeed. Time and resources better spent on the actual, you know, function of the organisation. Which is not, lest we forget, race-and-sex bean-counting.

Perhaps we’re to hope that such frivolous uses of time and resources will result in mere distraction, a loss of focus, and some inadvertent comedy. As if distractedness and waste, and chasing futility, might be the best available options. As opposed to the more typical effect of such endeavours, and of the mindset they reflect, which is the active and rapid corrosion of almost anything they touch, not least in terms of realism, standards, and competence.

Update 2:

In the comments, Jeff Guinn adds,

And so, the closer the RAF comes to these modish but seemingly arbitrary demographic ratios, the more reason there will be to suppose that standards have been lowered and corners cut, and to question the competence of the supposed beneficiaries. As has been the case in just about every other sphere – from academia to firefighting – where this nudging and fudging has been done.

Needless to say, this policy of supposed fairness seems somewhat unfair to those female and minority pilots who, while few in number, are very competent indeed, and whose credentials and reputation may subsequently be called into question as a result of emerging patterns. But hey, progress.

Update 3:

Depending on mood, one might find humour in the practised dishonesties of the progressive campus, where notions of demographic ‘correction’ are commonplace. But when extended to the realm of firefighting, policing, or the military, or medicine, or pretty much any vital infrastructure, then the funny side of things becomes harder to spot. And it’s perhaps worth noting that the mandatory pretence seen in academia, and all but perfected there, has given leverage to inadequates who do not welcome, and seem unlikely to tolerate, any attempt at realism or putting things right.

Given the vigour with which such demographic targets are pursued, and given the corners that are being cut in order to pursue them, on any number of fronts and at considerable expense… then checking the basic assumptions of those pursuing such goals doesn’t strike me as improper.

And yet, as seen in the pages of Personnel Today, some basic questions are not to be asked.

Also, open thread.

And in ladies’ changing room news:

Trying it on is indeed a phrase that comes to mind.

At which point, readers may note how Mr Firico’s professed “non-binary” status doesn’t mean that he’d be content in the men’s changing rooms, as an option, with either being fine, and instead grants, in his mind, an entitlement to violate store policy and the boundaries of women. He’s “not a man,” you see – and by the same logic, if that’s the word, not a woman either – but apparently, that women’s space is his kingdom now. And ladies who’d rather not get undressed near some random male interloper – whether that man is mentally ill or an opportunist pervert – are expected to shut up and comply. Because his identity, or feigned identity, trumps theirs.

It’s all terribly convenient.

Despite his incongruity, Mr Firico doesn’t appear at all curious as to the preferences of any female customers on whom he might be imposing, and his view of the store’s female staff is perhaps best judged by his willingness to ignore their objections while barging into a space not intended for men:

Views as to which party should feel ashamed may, I suspect, differ. And note that any female customers who might feel uncomfortable or degraded by sharing an intimate space with a bearded bedlamite are, again, expected to keep quiet and defer. In this new, inclusive world, there is, it seems, a pecking order.

Despite a subsequent apology by the store’s manager, we’re told that the experience of not getting his own way immediately and entirely without objection was “embarrassing” for Mr Firico, especially as a sales assistant “rolled her eyes.” Readers are invited to say whether hearing of such unspeakable trauma will deprive them of any sleep.

Mr Firico, complete with stunning gown, can be seen here. The clasping of the hands is a lovely touch.

Via ripx4nutmeg.

Nommy-nommy-nom. || Scenes from Quebec’s Museum of Civilisation. || Strange doggo. || Dogs, as understood by artificial intelligence. || He does this better than you do. || Bathing suit. || Brum brum. || The erotic arts. || Tickle my hindquarters. || Best to give it some clearance, I think. || Romancing detected. || New rules issued by unhappy man. || The fear that men know. || Pretentious guilt will take you to some strange places. || The unspanked at large. || The situation, alas, did not improve. || Stayin’ Alive. || His day at work was worse than yours. || For people who like folding and unfolding their furniture. (h/t, Mark) || A little something for feet enthusiasts. || Fly with confidence, they said. || And finally, via Darleen, have you fiddled with yours in the last twenty minutes?

Should you be tempted, you can follow me on Twitter.

Come, let us dip a toe in the world of transgender Reddit – specifically, rFTMOver30 – where the sexually dysmorphic hunt for slips-ups, pronoun blunders, and tiny acts of transgression. As you might imagine, things can get quite competitive.

First, a little background on the author of this particular woe:

The struggle involves a devilish innovation in the world of “transphobia”:

This inadvertent favouring of factual accuracy is, it turns out, only the appetiser. The main basis for umbrage is about to become clear.

And so,

There we go. New ground broken. Drinks all round.

After the gathering, when the guests had left, apologies were of course extracted from the author’s partner, along with confessions of wrongdoing, for daring to suggest that no harm was intended. Needless to say, and despite the lengthy confession and profuse apologies, and despite promises to “sit down” with Alison and correct her, the author of the piece is, we’re told, “having trouble moving on.”

You see, if friends come over for a pleasant evening and they don’t immediately consider you a potential mugger of women, or rapist of women, this is oppressive, “invalidating,” and “transphobic.” Such that it feels like “a punch in the gut.” It’s perhaps not the most obvious basis for invoking the unfairness of the world and one’s own endless suffering, but hey. In this competition, contrivance equals bonus points.

Quite what the author’s partner makes of this news – that in order to avoid being “transphobic,” she must consider her transgender lover a potential rapist – is, alas, not divulged.

Readers are invited to ponder the prospect of a dinner party at which, in order to be polite and suitably affirming, you’re obliged to insinuate that the host is rapist material. And to do it convincingly. Rather than, say, compliment the cooking or the décor.

Please update your files and lifestyles accordingly.

Via Eliza Mondegreen.

Update, via the comments: