Time, I think, to dip a toe in the world of academia. Specifically, some lively rumblings on the relative importance of electricians and sociology lecturers. I suppose you could start here, with this, but there are plenty of tangents and pith, and moments of slightly comical indignation.

Among those moments, this one:

Societies lived without electricity for millennia. Some still do. Don’t give me this shit.

By contrast, societies have ALWAYS needed individuals to assess their societal needs and propose solutions.

That by nature is The Sociologist. https://t.co/A0xifaYrXW

— Tim Gill (@timgill924) July 22, 2025

You see, Dr Tim Gill, our associate professor, is “an authority on society and everything in it.” Being an “intellectual,” he can “diagnose entire societies.” And then issue instructions to people of less importance.

Update, via the comments:

From one of Dr Gill’s own students:

A data point, I suppose.

Quoting this,

Rafi adds,

Which does rather suggest a gap in his model of the world.

At one point, Dr Gill boasts of never having used a lawn mower. Because apparently that’s a credential. Readers may also note Dr Gill’s use of the word handyman, complete with connotations of something other than respect. Still, you’ve almost got to admire the imperviousness of someone who responds to accusations of being arrogant and haughty and unmoored from reality by being arrogant and haughty and unmoored from reality.

Regarding Dr Gill’s rumblings of alleged profundity and intellectual heft, commenter Chow Bag draws our attention to this.

No laughing at the back.

And it must be quite strange to be rendered indignant by something – assumptions about a field, its standards, and the kinds of people it attracts – that your own indignant replies are pretty much confirming.

The thing is, the field of sociology needn’t, I think, have become so disreputable. I see little that’s inherently dubious about an attempt to study human society. But the field’s near-total occupation, or colonisation, by smug, delusional leftists, with all of their blind spots and baggage – and the consequent near-ubiquity of faulty default assumptions and predestined conclusions – has, inevitably, taken a toll.

The kind of people who, like Dr Gill, want to use a pretence of academic rigour to propagate their own rather weird and implausible political preferences.

Which is why we get supposed social scientists who find it problematic that Wikipedia entries written by men about pop culture topics that tend to be liked by men are often longer and more detailed, more nerdy, than entries by women on topics that are more likely to be of interest to women. As if men and women were somehow – and must be – identical in their psychology, their preferences and priorities, and as if any difference in Wikipedia entry length must be a result of some social oppression, some invisible downtroddenness.

And likewise, it’s why we get a social science lecturer being bewildered by the inegalitarian distribution of litter, and fretting about how to “narrow the gap” in discarded fag packets and food-smeared detritus, while studiously avoiding any acknowledgement of obvious differences in behaviour between social groups, as this would presumably offend his own egalitarian assumptions. And who gives no thought, none at all, to how the litter gets there in the first place. As if it just fell from the sky, randomly, like overnight snow.

And among Dr Gill’s peers, thinking of this kind is hardly uncommon. Hence the reputation.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye, and so forth.

And in brief British heatwave news:

It was a month-long experiment. Behold your taxes at work.

And before you ask,

Oh, and should you be tempted:

Do let us know how it goes.

Should clarity be required, this is not some miraculous property of yoghurt, even of Greek yoghurt at 10% fat. It’s merely a function of any substance that can be smeared onto windows before drying white. Presumably, similar effects could be achieved by gluing toilet paper onto your windows, which would also alert neighbours to your cunning. Or by purchasing any of the commercially available window films that do much the same thing, only better.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye, and so forth.

And speaking of not-at-all unbalanced cross-dressing men:

That would be this chap here, Mr Sasha Yates, whose behaviour didn’t appear to concern the progressive ladies who rushed to his defence to ensure he kept his job after initial complaints. And thereby kept his access to the schoolgirls’ changing rooms, where a bewigged Mr Yates paraded around in his own bra and panties, much to the girls’ discomfort, and while asking those teenage girls about their underwear and menstrual cycles.

The same progressive ladies who denounced as “hate” and “transphobia” any expression of concern, and who elevated themselves with the airing of modish views, their ostentatious displays of inclusivity, while screwing over the schoolgirls being harassed by a cross-dressing creep. Because in the Progressive Pecking Order, expressing discomfort with sexual boundary violations is terribly low-status when the culprit is a man pretending to be a woman.

Or as one progressive lady put it, following complaints of disturbing behaviour,

I’ll give you a moment to process that one. To savour the implications.

To those of us less practised in progressive dissembling, the above would seem to translate as, “It’s okay for the teenage girls in our care to be creeped on repeatedly by a cross-dressing pervert, and consequently left feeling violated and upset, because we have guidance counsellors. And a box of tissues. Also, cross-dressing perverts are very fashionable right now.”

That these sentiments were expressed with great confidence – by a woman – and were left entirely unchallenged by the reporter – also a woman – is quite a thing. It does, I think, tell us something about progressive priorities and which groups are deemed of much less importance.

Still, at least we can savour the irony of claims by Mr Yates’ defenders that we should look at “her [sic] character, not her [sic] gender…”

Readers may recall that Mr Yates’ homemade pornography – which he saw fit to send to a concerned parent, as one does – featured our burly cross-dresser using a kitchen sink as erotic apparatus, and while smoking methamphetamine and asking, coquettishly, “Am I a good meth whore?” A question that every parent hopes to hear from someone entrusted with the care of their children.

Following his self-inflicted exposure and subsequent resignation, supposedly for “ongoing health reasons,” Mr Yates took to a fetish forum to boast of his “coming out” as a “meth whore” – thereby titillating others with an “exposure fetish” – and while simultaneously positioning himself as the victim of a cruel, unfeeling world:

Nature is healing, buddy.

Mr Yates is currently seeking employment as a “transsexual escort.” “I am,” says he, “definitely interested in being pimped out to as many men as possible.”

Again, words that every parent longs to hear.

Whether the schoolgirls whose underwear so intrigued Mr Yates, or their parents, are likely to receive an apology from the school district, or from any of the progressive ladies who dismissed their concerns and accused them of bigotry, remains unclear.

Above, Mr Yates being affirmed by progressive ladies.

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.