And in whatever-the-hell-this-is news:

Because environmentalist politics is all about the joy.

Ah, those self-other paradigms. And situated bodies. Of course.

Naturally, the planet is also assigned with novelty pronouns – BE/BER – because, well, because.

Such is the radical heft of the Journal of Lesbian Studies. Where other topics of deep pondering include “lesbian-dog relationalities and becomings,” and “lesbian, non-binary, and trans-dog intimacies.”

Empowered feminist ladies and their erotic entanglements with pets is, you’ll recall, a subject we’ve touched on before.

The latest issue of the Journal of Lesbian Studies can be accessed, for a whole thirty days, for a mere £220.

Oh, and should you be intrigued by “ecosexuality,” “grassilingus,” tree-licking, and free-swinging breasts daubed with mud, well, today’s your lucky day.

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

Lifted from the comments, a reminder of Teacher Appreciation Week:

This clearly female teacher has a deep voice, do you think it’s from smoking? pic.twitter.com/CGoFhMXy1C

— Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) May 15, 2025

To which Chow Bag replies,

A not unreasonable question, all things considered.

Regarding Mr Look-At-My-Fabulous-Hair-Extensions, I suppose the obvious issue is the self-absorption of our strapping madam, such that he records and then publicly shares classroom videos of himself faffing about with his wig while expecting applause for his feats of fake-hair management. It does rather speak to his priorities and focus. And that’s before we get to the oddly ample fake bosom.

The other issue, I’d say, is the fact that schools have surrendered to cross-dressing men with a rapidity and full-throatedness that is quite remarkable. The place where cross-dressing men should not be – in positions of intimacy with, and authority over, children – is where they seem to find the most gushing welcome and the most ludicrous indulgence. Such that children are coerced to mouth fabulist pronouns and to regurgitate obvious lies.

Despite much higher rates of sexual offending, including offences against children, and similarly high rates of serious mental illness, people who identify as trans appear to be favoured in school hiring. Their numbers, and social-media prominence, does seem noteworthy. Among successful candidates, there is a certain triumphalism. A confident strutting.

And we’ve seen several examples of even the most basic safeguarding measures being abandoned, and an eye-widening disdain for children who report inappropriate behaviour by men in bad wigs. Even when that behaviour would, if indulged in by any other demographic, almost certainly result in immediate dismissal.

As if the safety of children were of much less importance than being seen to affirm cross-dressing men.

Also from the comments:

Supposedly, it’s about making the children feel “comfortable.” Though it occurs to me that the flag’s connotations of coerced pretending, fetishistic mutilation and life-shortening hormone abuse – and generally being subordinate to a cross-dressing man with mental health issues – may have other effects. Say, by transforming a classroom from a place of learning into one of cowed pretension, of deference to the untrue.

And then there’s the not insignificant matter of introducing an element of transvestite farce into the classroom, which may result in children being distracted from the task at hand by the perhaps more immediate question of what the strange man in the wig and padded push-up bra sees when he looks in a mirror.

Readers may also wish to ponder whether children should be imposed upon in this way and should be obliged to pretend, to be dishonest, on a daily basis. Which is to say, pretending not to see the pantomime, and being obliged to participate in the teacher’s psychodrama, for the teacher’s gratification. While any children who demur, who acknowledge the obvious, even politely, run a risk of being disciplined and publicly denounced.

It seems to me this is, at the very least, rude. Some might say abusive.

But hey, this is where we are now. Let the progress wash over you.

Expanded via the comments.

Via Toni Airaksinen, more from the hothouse world of pretentious agonising: 

The curriculum writer in question, Michael Lolkus, is keen to let the world know that he champions “equity- and social justice-oriented instructional practices.” “Whiteness,” it turns out, is something to be chided and “decentred” in favour of “ethnomathematics investigations.” “The lens of whiteness” we’re told, will be turned upon itself and “critical interrogation” will ensue.

Because, among the agonised, buzzwords must abound. Lest their status be in doubt.

And so, the paper, published in the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education – which I’d assumed would be more concerned with issues of urban planning and traffic management – contains much fretting and many assumptions:

Quite how those unspecified “white” ideas alter the rules of multiplication, percentages and other simple mathematical operations remains a thing of mystery. Indeed, as so often, the precise nature of this alleged corruption, this all-pervasive and befouling “whiteness” – a term used 157 times – is left to the imagination. Though much is pitched upon that mystery:

You see, Mr Lolkus fears he may be crushing brown-skinned students with his rampant, manly pallor.

“I am working to distance myself from whiteness,” says our fretful hero. Because “white educators like me need to embrace the burden of unpacking and dismantling white supremacy.” And so, Mr Lolkus will “grapple with my complicity in working within an educational system that… maintains white supremacy culture.”

White supremacy culture. In maths class. One of so many terms left intriguingly nebulous, but from which All Good Hearted People are expected to recoil with handkerchiefs clutched to their faces.

The nearest we get to gritty particulars is a brief stream of bald assertion:

“Representation” is touched on fleetingly, though the question of why black middle-school pupils being as yet unfamiliar with, say, Katherine Johnson or Euphemia Haynes might impair their comprehension of fractions is oddly unexplored. Or likewise, why any 10-year-old of East Asian ancestry might struggle with long division on account of hearing insufficient praise for Wu Wenjun’s algebraic topology.

Mr Lolkus laments his “positionality” as a structurer of lessons and “knower of… mathematical concepts,” wishing instead to be merely a “community member.” A somewhat fanciful flattening of “hierarchy,” and of values, and an abandonment of the teacher’s customary responsibility. This is followed by a suggestion that pupils, especially underperforming minority pupils – the party least familiar with the subject matter – should be put in charge of structuring lessons and the broader curriculum. A sure-fire recipe for success.

And then there’s the conceit that heroically brown pupils are performing “additional labour” by doing less well in class, or by not doing the work at all.

Regarding low expectations, do hold that thought. We’ll get to that in a minute.

Meanwhile, our educator offers a boldly modish analysis. Says Mr Lolkus, “My experiences as an upper middle-class white male informed every decision I made,” and by “positioning myself, a white male… as an authority figure” – which is to say, a teacher – this has somehow rendered minority students unable to do simple mathematics.

Or put another way, if a teacher feels equipped to teach a subject that they have studied for many years – such that they feel they are likely to know its particulars in more detail than middle-school children – then this is a cause for concern, a basis for ostentatious atonement. Provided the teacher in question is white, obviously.

And worse – more damning still – Mr Lolkus adds – or rather, confesses – that he grew up as a “heterosexual and cisgender male.”

And so, should some black pupils be struggling with middle-school mathematics, then this can only be explained by the fact that their teacher is pale-skinned and heterosexual. This, then, is the bleeding edge of “equity” scholarship. And the makings of a “social justice” revolution in knowledge transfer.

At which point, readers may wonder whether the institutional influence of so many scrupulously woke, racially fixated neurotics – creatures much like Mr Lolkus – may be among the other, perhaps more obvious causes of impairment and disparity.

Regarding those low expectations, denounced earlier, readers may recall a previous mention of Mr Lolkus and his peers, with our educators devising elaborate excuses for pupils who are undisciplined, selfish, and disruptive – provided said pupils are of a suitable hue.

Excuses in which maths classes are framed as an arena of “violence and trauma.” Specifically, the “trauma” of not knowing the answers, on account of not paying attention, and the “violence” of being corrected for being loud and disruptive in class while others are trying to work. According to our radical reinventors of education, attempts to teach calculus and geometry should be enlivened with shouting, tardiness, and lots of adorable “cacophony.”

On grounds that “whiteness” – say, expectations of accuracy, promptness, and diligence – is something that gets in the way of black students “maintaining their Blackness.”

So no low expectations there, obviously.

Another day, another drama involving the changing rooms of schoolgirls – and another illustration of how wokeness – all that progressive piety – can be a mask for other motives:

And hey, what could possibly go wrong?

Ah.

Quite right, one might think.

Oh.

“You wicked girls will undress in front of this weird, cross-dressing boy, and you will do it over and over again.”

I paraphrase, of course. Though not, I think, wildly.

Readers are invited to ponder the psychology in play at this terribly progressive school. The triumphal righteousness of compelling thirteen-year-old schoolgirls to undress in front of a mentally ill male or opportunist pervert. A mentally ill male or opportunist pervert that the schoolgirls do not trust. Resulting in the girls feeling frightened and upset.

Imagine that tingle of power. All wrapped in a drag of modish piety.

After Mrs Georgas’ daughter refused to take part, understandably, a compromise of sorts was suggested:

You see,

Entirely at the expense of others.

Such that, “the discomfort or privacy concerns of other students, teachers, or parents are not valid reasons to deny or limit the full and equal use of facilities based on a student’s gender-related identity.” Instead, any girl who doesn’t appreciate being ordered to undress in front of a boy – a boy she does not trust – will be deemed the aberrant party, the one whose behaviour is problematic.

And so, rather than relocate the “trans-identified” boy to (a) the boys’ changing room, or (b) an existing “gender-neutral” space for His Super-Special Self, any girls who complain about the incongruity, the moral inaptness, are to be relocated and isolated. Leaving more compliant girls to endure the indignity and weirdness. Such is wokeness.

At a subsequent public meeting of the Deerfield School District 109 School Board, held on Thursday, Mrs Georgas explained,

Well, yes, pretty much.

And yet the following speaker, a visibly self-satisfied woman named Charles Friedman, who declares herself “a transgender person” and who also just happens to have a transgender child – hey, what are the odds? – was all too happy to disregard the particulars of Mrs Georgas’ complaint and its wider implications.

Indeed, the lady named Charles, a trans activist – one of many present – dismissed the concerns above as “bullying.” Presumably on grounds that not allowing boys to barge into the changing rooms of thirteen-year-old girls and then watch them undress is an act of oppression. A denial of basic rights.

Those with an appetite for grim surrealism can watch the outpourings of subsequent speakers, for whom pronoun stipulation is a thing, for whom big earrings and nail polish establish womanhood, and for whom the creepy violation of thirteen-year-old schoolgirls is a basis for applause.

Should any tender-hearted readers be tempted to assume that the above must be some one-off aberration, by all means think again. And do note the updates to that particular farce.

Previous changing-room adventures – in which the word pattern comes to mind – can be found here, here, here, and here.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding this,

Liz adds, not unreasonably,

Indeed. And yet, in the video of the school board meeting, subsequent speakers, all trans activists, many of whom travelled from far out of town, casually dismiss or ignore the clearly stated concerns, and denounce Mrs Georgas as a bully, a bigot, and, bizarrely, a “white supremacist.”

Because you’re not allowed to object to your children being psychologically abused.

And the option proposed by the school, and affirmed by Ms Charles Friedman, our self-satisfied trans activist – the one who just happens to have a transgender child – is likely to result in further drama. Or the same drama repeated.

If girls who object to a boy’s presence in their changing room are told to change somewhere else, and not in their own changing room, then it seems entirely possible that one by one, quite rapidly, the other girls will follow suit, resulting in the cross-dressing boy having the girls’ changing room all to himself. At which point, this may be invoked as yet another form of bigotry and oppression.

And perhaps the boy or his activist parents, or likely activist parent, will demand he be given access to whichever new space the girls have been obliged to retreat to. Because his psychodrama must be imposed on others, regardless of their objections. And around we go again.

And – as so often – note just how readily the school administrators, these uniformly progressive women, will sell out their supposed sisters. The daughters of their neighbours. In order to look fashionable, and therefore high-status.

It’s also, I think, worth noting the demeanour of Ms Friedman, our trans activist. During her speech, she shows little interest in the concerns of parents. Instead, she is dismissive, self-satisfied and visibly triumphal. The tone is basically, “We have the power over your children now. Suck it up, bitches.”

I can’t help but think that’s rather telling.

I should add that the degree of woke perversity – such that girls who object to the humiliation are the ones deemed problematic and aberrant – is so pronounced that a sense of unreality may ensue. For instance, readers may wish to imagine themselves at the school board meeting above, hearing Mrs Georgas speak, and then hearing her being booed, called absurd names, and her concerns being gleefully dismissed. By men in bad drag.

In light of which, it’s difficult to see any plausible common ground. When activist attendees would rather jeer and preen, and call concerned parents bigots and racists, rather than address their actual concerns, it’s not obvious what room for compromise, or debate, there could be.

Or, Shakespeare For The Tremulous And Neurotic: 

No laughing at the back.