And in can-anyone-else-smell-paedophilia? news:

Pictures of mentally ill, self-mutilating men. In kindergarten settings. To facilitate discussions. With pre-school children.

Strange is a good start. Other descriptors are available.

Should any readers be trying to think of reasons not to raise an eyebrow, it should be pointed out that roughly half of sexually dysmorphic male prisoners – so-called trans women – are there for sexual offences, including, quite often, offences against children – a rate that is much higher than that for the male prison population in general, whether for adult sexual offences or paedophilia.

Likewise, dysmorphic men and women report severe childhood abuse, often childhood sexual abuse, at rates far higher than is found in the wider population. Adults who have been violated as children are in turn much more likely to have, shall we say, issues regarding normal boundaries, and to act inappropriately with minors.

The consequences of which aren’t exactly hard to find. To say nothing of child abusers who invoke some sudden-onset transgenderism once their activities have been discovered and interrupted.

In light of which, encouraging small children to “accept others as they are” – a euphemism for not being wary of sexually dysmorphic men, a demographic among which paedophilia is much more common – seems rather unwise. For reasons we’ve seen many times. Yet this pre-emptive dulling of any wariness is the stated goal of the poster’s creator, illustrator and activist Tyler Feder.

As one might.

However, this is the bedlamite timeline, and so,

And,

At which point, the words foxes and henhouse spring to mind.

And it has to be said, “Your Four-Year-Old Children Will Look At Our Pictures Of Weird, Naked Men” is an odd flex. A peculiar hill to die on. 

If you read the full Reduxx article, linked above, it doesn’t get any more reassuring. The smell does seem to persist.

Update, via the comments: 

As someone who isn’t by temperament easily scandalised or particularly prudish, I nonetheless find myself in the position of having to say, “Er, are you sure about this? This seems all kinds of weird and inappropriate.”

And it seems to be happening more often than I’d expected.

Sharp-eyed readers may also note the assumption that exposure to, and familiarity with, the subject of transgenderism – and by extension, autogynephilia, and drag queens, and cross-dressing more generally – will invariably make one feel great warmth towards these phenomena – and the things that often go with them.

When in fact, the opposite may be true. And not infrequently.

Update 2:

In the comments, Aelfheld adds, 

Well, even if we assume implausibly benign motives, which may be a bit of an ask, premature exposure to sexuality, even in its more humdrum forms, isn’t generally regarded as beneficial. And it seems to me that transgender people would have an easier ride, and a less contentious group reputation, if they observed the obvious courtesy and stayed the hell away from children.

And yet, as we’ve seen repeatedly, many schools seem to be actively recruiting the psychologically marginal – say, attention-craving men in painted nails and make-up who think “looking cute” is the highest function of those employed as a primary-school educator.

And then there’s the peddling of dysmorphic cartoon pornography to middle-school children, without parents’ knowledge or consent, via which eleven-year-olds are introduced to “vagina slime,” fellatio, and “strap-on hotness,” and the joys of masturbating while driving.

Or middle-school librarians who seem convinced that eleven-year-olds need to know how to whore themselves – and to know that whoring is both valid and empowering. Because they may be transgender and may have to pay for hormones and surgical mutilations.

If this all sounds rather lurid and improbable, do follow the links.

Oh, and frottage-seeking drag queens.

And this hiring of the inapt, the incongruous and inadequate, is done as if it were a way for schools to display their own sophistication and fashionable status. As if this “queering” of children’s minds, this erosion of reality, of probity, of normal boundaries, could have no downsides, no dubious effects.

And of course we’ve encountered things of this kind:

Again, at risk of sounding stuffy, these feats of posturing and perversity do not strike me as wholesome, or a path to a brighter, more fragrant tomorrow.

As a measure of where we are, culturally – and of the levels of pretending currently expected – this rather captures something: 

How terribly modern. How fashionably unhinged.

Moments later, the two girls returned, hurriedly, explaining in whispered tones that, “There was a man in the shower with us.” Ms Tyrrell promptly told the girls to get changed in a toilet stall, where privacy of a sort might be maintained.

Naturally enough,

However,

Unhappy about the front desk’s dismissal of her concerns, Ms Tyrrell contacted the pool’s management via email, resulting in some unexpected confusion:

Presumably, on grounds that no-one, but no-one, could possibly object to a big, hairy, very male pervert lurking in a changing room intended for women and girls. So, obviously, it must be something else. Some kind of fashion issue.

Ms Dobler was keen to remind Ms Tyrrell and other unnerved ladies that the pool does provide the option of “single stall washrooms or changerooms for patrons… [who] want to maintain more privacy.” In other words, women and girls who would rather not shower in front of big, hairy perverts can always retreat and surrender territory to the aforementioned big, hairy perverts.

Women and girls, you see, being a lower priority.

It’s the progressive pecking order.

Know your place, ladies.

At which point, Ms Tyrrell, now somewhat incredulous, replied with a not unreasonable question:

This, however, prompted a more chiding response from the pool’s management, with Ms Dobler boasting, “We are proud to have a Diversity in Changerooms Policy in our centres,” and adding that patrons are welcome to use showers and changing facilities “where they feel most safe.” The ironies of this statement apparently passing undetected.

“Everyone’s gender identity and expressions are valid,” Ms Dobler insisted. “Our goal is to create an inclusive environment where everyone feels respected and valued.”

Readers will note that the word everyone is rather heavy with connotations and does not seem to include women and girls who aren’t overly keen on the intimate proximity of big, creepy men. Even if those big, creepy men are wearing sparkly bikinis intended for children.

If the above should be insufficiently surreal, do read the rest over at Reduxx.

Update, via the comments:

Aitch notes Ms Dobler’s gratuitous pronouns and quips,

The ostentatious declaration of pronouns does, I think, communicate more than is perhaps realised. Sort of, I will happily pretend not to see the most glaring realities and obvious contradictions, and therefore cannot be relied upon.

Something along those lines.

Or simply, will lie.

Regarding the seeming obliviousness, the glib piety, of those inviting men into women-only spaces – and the kinds of men to whom such opportunities might appeal – Dicentra adds,

Which brought to mind this recent illustration of the same phenomenon, in which obtuseness blurs into practised dishonesty:

Again, the progressive pecking order. Adherence to which entails pretending one doesn’t know any number of rather obvious things.

Lifted from the previous post, an excruciatingly obtuse discussion about wangs and women’s changing rooms. In which the very patient Warren Smith attempts to tease sense from a self-styled ‘Harris voter’.

Again, I say obtuse, but it’s more a matter of practised dishonesty:

Responding to the exchange above, Rafi adds, not unfairly, 

Mr Harris Voter does seem to be struggling with some very basic realities. Things that we, as a society, used to understand.

A small point, but with a bigger point lurking behind it:

I think there’s obviously a lot of truth to the idea that kids benefit from having desirable behavior modeled for them, but the demand to have it appear in media is a cheap substitute for the much more difficult thing that actually works https://t.co/fsgKMLao5s

— wanye (@wanyeburkett) October 20, 2024

As a child, I wasn’t interested in books and TV programmes that centred on children my own age. In fact, juvenile characters, supposedly there to be identified with, were generally distracting and off-putting, if not downright annoying, a thing that broke the spell. A phenomenon known to some as The Wesley Crusher Effect.

I remember being interested in astronauts, adventurers, superheroes or whatever. But being represented, in the ham-fisted modern sense, wasn’t an obvious factor. As noted in the thread linked above, the whole point of the exercise was to inhabit the minds of people who aren’t you, and whose circumstances therefore seem much more exciting.

As to the larger point – the much more difficult thing – it does rather suggest a parental lapse of some significance.

Time to run a finger along academia’s cutting edge:

Book those tickets now, ladies. Time is short and you’ve so much to learn.

You will, needless to say, be taking instruction from “agents of self-knowledge production” who will fearlessly and heroically “expand traditional narratives about madres / mothering as an action, an embodied experience,” and who will be “expanding the terminology of motherhood as it connects to LGBTQIA+ communities, racial identities, gender expressions, surviving oppressions, straddling socio-economic statuses, citizenship, and cultural memory.”

At which point, readers may wonder whether referring to oneself, rather earnestly, as an “agent of self-knowledge production,” as if self-awareness were an area of expertise, actually suggests something other than self-awareness.

Other temptations include “virtual LGBTQ-affirming yoga,” an exploration of “trauma-informed movement,” conducted via Zoom. And for which participants are reminded to “bring your own mat or towel.”

Yes, it’s a “self-empowering learning environment,” in which the big questions will not be shied from:

It’s no use trying to flee. I’ve locked the doors.

While pondering these questions, and the inevitable “intersections of identities,” attendees will be given a precious opportunity to mingle with Professor Sotomayor, along with Dr Ashleigh Strange – a they-person, pictured here – and numerous, equally dazzling “protest organisers, musicians, poets, and drag performers.”

And obviously, when anyone thinks of motherhood, the first thing that comes to mind is the term drag performers. Which is to say, suggestively gyrating men, wearing tights and corsets, and generally being fierce, while demanding your fealty. Your full-throated affirmation of their gyrating, corset-wearing cause.

This, then, is “the expanding terminology of motherhood as it connects to LGBTQIA+ communities.” And nothing screams motherhood quite like a convulsing bald man in a bodystocking.

Above, the embodiment of motherhood.

You will become “AUTHENTICALLY YOU” – authenticity being a recurring theme of the event – by watching peculiar men hurling themselves about while dressed up as women, something they aren’t.

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