From Montreal, via the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, another feat of unrelenting pretension:

The proud author, Ms Julia Wright, a student at McGill University, is, we learn, a them – a paranormally ungendered being. And all is not well:

As one might, all things considered.

Well, as possibilities, the words neurotic and aggravating come to mind. And we could perhaps throw in hysterical, as a bonus, what with the whole hyperventilating-and-vomiting thing.

As for rudeness, pressuring others to pretend things on demand, despite the reality right in front of them, is not the most obvious recipe for civility and mutual respect. Some, for instance, will have come to realise that The Pronoun Game, so very much in fashion, is often a way to exert power over others, by making them say things, publicly and repeatedly, that they don’t for a minute believe to be true. There is, after all, the issue of probity.

And once you start playing The Pronoun Game, a game of pretend, it’s by no means clear how you might stop pretending before things veer into farce. Which, as we’ve seen, they very often do.

And then of course there’s the fact that the Pronoun Game is by definition a game all about you, but which others are expected to play, or are coerced to play, albeit in small, supporting roles. Not an altogether thrilling prospect.

However, Ms Wright appears unconcerned by such details – which affect other people, people who aren’t her. Instead, she returns to a much more engaging subject – namely, herself and her extensive list of feelings:

Again, as so often, one has to ask – exactly which player in this drama is doing the misgendering? The unnamed presenter who sees a young woman named Julia and refers to her as she; or the young woman named Julia who expects to be perceived as something other than she is? Indeed, as something that doesn’t exist. The kind of young woman who tells us, with an air of triumph, “I had been thinking about my pronouns daily for over two years.” As one does, when one’s mental wellbeing is not at all in question.

But ours is an age in which self-preoccupied young women are encouraged to boast, in print, of their unhappy compulsions, and to bemoan the fact that they appear to be what they are – no more, no less – and consequently struggle to seem complicated and fascinating. Specifically, a miraculously sexless being, “neither a man nor a woman.”

Probably. Not everyone wants to play.

Perhaps the word fad would be less offensive. Or tedious status-game played by the pretentious and insufferable. I’m open to suggestions.

It occurs to me that being surrounded by students and professors, for whom faddishness and contrivance are often the stuff of status, may not be entirely helpful on the mental health front. If everyone around you is playing the same game, and pretending the same things, and doing it competitively, you could easily lose your bearings.

Ah yes, the woe of not being immediately and telepathically perceived as “non-binary,” and thus being denied the status of terribly interesting. As agonies go, it’s pretty niche. But given Ms Wright’s apparent lack of interest in how her Game Of Self may impose upon others, I’m tempted to suggest that respect, a reciprocal virtue, may not be the most apt card to play.

Update, via the comments, which you’re reading of course:

When you browse the website of Portsmouth’s Mary Rose Museum, looking for information on artefacts from Tudor England… and this is what you get:

Because when you look at a sixteenth-century mirror salvaged from a warship belonging to Henry VIII, the first thing you want to know is how it might induce psychological crises in the sexually dysmorphic.

And,

It’s quality stuff. Just like being there, in the mists of history. And not at all inept, or jarring, or comically incongruous.

The word indirectly is, I fear, doing an awful lot of work. And thanks to peering through this “Queer lens,” readers will doubtless find that their understanding of Tudor history has been enriched no end.

We’re told – indeed, assured  – by Hannah McCann, of the museum’s collections and curatorial staff,

A comfort, I know.

Exactly why such “queering” is underway – what its relevance might be – is not, however, made clear. An explanation for this bolting-on of irrelevant, flimsy tat – in the name of “queer theory” – was not, it seems, deemed necessary. Nor is it entirely obvious how such “queering” of museum contents benefits those who wish to know more about Henry VIII’s favourite warship.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding the mysterious purpose of all this “queering” of sixteenth-century objects, Rafi adds, drily:

Indeed. That does seem to be the primary objective. That, and the modish tactic of identifying a thing that people find interesting and then inserting one’s own rather narrow and tedious politics, and by extension oneself. Looking through the catalogue notes, no other obvious benefit, for visitors, springs to mind. Unless we include the exercising of eyebrows by moving them up and down.

And the effect, the incongruity – the sheer cack-handedness of it – is quite bizarre. It reminded me of the ‘adverts’ in The Truman Show, in which Truman’s wife and neighbours suddenly, rather desperately, and often mid-sentence, draw attention to some cleaning product or chicken dinner.

Welcome to the world of queered history. It’s like actual history, but less so.

Update 2:

In the comments, John highlights a few lines from the Telegraph’s coverage of the story:

Well, you’d think that might be a more obvious line of historical enquiry, albeit more difficult to verify.

And it occurs to me that the contrived witterings quoted above – and the museum’s urge to share them as if they were scholarly and profound – says rather more about the state of our cultural institutions than it does about anything else.

Via ripx4nutmeg.

Further to recent rumblings on assumptions of racism, this caught my eye:

Who needs evidence when you have faith? https://t.co/G8zdjcT5yP

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) July 31, 2023

Today’s word is mindset.

Mr Dettlaff – sorry, Professor Dettlaff – has a PhD in social work and “formerly served as Dean of the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work.” He uses the term “white supremacist” quite freely, and entirely without irony.

Apparently, the professor was removed from his position as Dean for demanding the “abolition” of policing and incarceration, and demanding a “new, liberated society… free from violence and oppression.” And in which habitual criminals and assorted sociopaths roam freely and unimpeded.

In Professor Dettlaff’s imaginings, a world without physical consequences for robbery and predation would mean “individuals have everything they need to thrive.” Except, of course, any third-party protection from the aforementioned habitual criminals and assorted sociopaths. This “new, liberated society,” in which policing has been “firmly disavowed,” will, he insists, “truly keep us safe.”

It seems that Professor Dettlaff was deemed too ideologically deranged even for a modern university. Which is quite the feat.

He’s a “thought leader,” you know.

Also, this:

💜 I prepared a curricular unit for a state initiative on childhood adversity with a slide that stated that colonization, white supremacy, racism, and oppression were the root causes of trauma and was asked to provide references for the slide. 😳

— Leigh Kimberg (@LeighKimberg) July 29, 2023

Ms Kimberg, above, is all about “compassion, healing, justice and equity.” She likes to announce her pronouns to random passers-by.

Update, via the comments, which you’re reading, of course:

Regarding Ms Kimberg, pst314 notes,

Pretty much. It has, in fact, been referred to as a laundering operation. But it seems that even this minimal requirement is far too strenuous and distracting when there’s a “new society” to invent. One in which everyone has everything they need, in which the concept of law-enforcement is a distant memory, and in which carjackers gambol about like newborn lambs.

And it’s quite something to have a supposed educator demanding that the editors of supposedly academic journals stop even the most basic attempts to ensure that key assertions in their publications are not just made-up or wildly delusional. But this, it seems, is where we are.

Update 2:

Somewhat related, on prison and recidivism.

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Jennifer Lahl and Kallie Fell on “queered” health care:

Ah, but “highly gendered” and “offspring-focussed” health care – for pregnant women and their babies – makes it “challenging” for sexually dysmorphic women who wish to be perceived as men, even while heavily pregnant. In short, “Screw the wellbeing of the baby, the inhibited lactation, and the risk of serious birth defects. Just jack me up on testosterone and refer to me as Sir.”

I paraphrase, of course. But nowhere near as much as one might hope.

Somewhat related, Heather Mac Donald on fads, transgenderism, and defaults:

A phenomenon doubtless familiar to regular readers.

And Noah Carl on the unspeakable:

Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.

In case you missed it in the comments, I bring news of a dream employee. You see, she’s not at all entitled. It’s just that the world must revolve around her:

Tiktoker claims to suffer from “time blindness” and blasts employers who make employees come on time. She wants to dismantle the system which says people should be on time pic.twitter.com/jbW6SccYJz

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 13, 2023

I think we can assume that madam’s professed “time blindness” – which apparently precludes the use of the reminder function on her phone – doesn’t result in her turning up for work early, or accidentally working extra hours. Or being in any way more useful or helpful, or less self-involved.

I think we can assume that with some confidence.

If the elevation of chronic lateness to some kind of progressive credential or state of pious victimhood sounds familiar, we have encountered several variations on this theme.

Unreliability is, for instance, championed by the Oregon Health Authority, on grounds that “urgency is a white supremacist value,” and therefore expectations of punctuality and preparedness are terribly problematic and something to disdain. Whereas, in matters of health, tardiness and lack of forethought are presumably aspirational, a woke ideal.

And then there was the time we were told, by Marcus Moore, an “equity transformation specialist,” that the cultivation of self-absorption and lack of focus, along with a disregard for deadlines, standards and obligations – and by implication, a disregard for reciprocity – will somehow catapult minority students into gainful employment and a world of many, many friends.

Because expecting minority students to turn up on time is merely “bending to whiteness” and therefore a cause of “tremendous harm.” Unlike the “equity” poison being tipped into their ears. Examples of which abound, some positively surreal.

As noted at the time:

And,

Readers will likely have registered that the convolutions of “equity transformation specialists” are not entirely dissimilar to the insufferable narcissism of the young lady in the video above, our “chaotic philosopher.” It is, I think, worth noting that, when used by Clown Quarter academics and their fellow pinhead agitators, the term “equity” translates as something like “equality of outcome regardless of inputs.”

And so, we have people who disdain the habits of bourgeois life as something to be “dismantled” and done away with, at least for themselves or certain favoured groups, while still expecting the rewards of those same bourgeois habits.

Perhaps there’s a word for that.