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.

From the forthcoming film by Vaishnavi Sundar, Behind The Looking Glass, about women whose partners, or fathers, have ‘transitioned’:

“Your dad has fallen in love with himself, & there is no part for you in there where you are not just a prop.”

There is profound silence surrounding the lives of the children with trans id-ing father. Are they just props used for championing a delusion? #behindthelookingglass https://t.co/MGRE78WGLk pic.twitter.com/aw9yFit55J

— Vaishnavi Sundar (@Vaishax) July 27, 2024

Emma Thomas, the woman recounting her somewhat unorthodox childhood, also appears in this longer interview. The subjects touched on include unmentionable erotic motives, ideological capture, and the experience of watching a man publicly enacting an approximation of breastfeeding. It’s a strange listen, necessarily, a little sad, and sometimes darkly funny.

Ms Thomas also has a blog, Children Of Transitioners, in which she relates her experiences, and those of others, and where she attempts to parse the phenomenon of dads in dresses:

For instance.

Update, via the comments:

Pete SJ visits Ms Thomas’ blog and quotes this:

Adding,

At which point, this eye-widening saga came to mind.

And note that those applauding Mr Yates, the star of the link above – the bewigged man quizzing schoolgirls about their panties – are overwhelmingly ladies of a progressive leaning. Selling out their own daughters, and the daughters of their neighbours.

In order to be seen holding fashionable views.

Or, as Ms Thomas recounts in the embedded video:

So again, some boundaries being tested.

Given the current near-ubiquity of trans activism, it’s curious how little attention is given to estranged wives – ‘trans widows’ – or, as above, estranged children. Who, I suppose, would be ‘trans orphans’.

To which dicentra replies,

Before citing the following scolding comment, directed at Ms Thomas by a disaffected reader:

Yet the popular activist term deadnaming.

And you’d think the news that your husband no longer exists and that your entire marriage was a farce – or that your dad no longer exists and is now competing for the title of mom – or some bizarre hooker aunt – might be a legitimate basis for some, shall we say, irritation.

Even so-called “phobia.”

Update 2:

The entire documentary can now be viewed here.