And in modern-hellscape news:

A terribly modern grievance, I think you’ll agree. Very now.

This is where we are, people. Everyone remember where we parked.

You see, Mr Buckley wanted to “have the experience of breastfeeding.” Hence the novelty breasts. Mr Buckley is also indignant that a woman, a mother of three and a breastfeeding counsellor, might regard such ambitions as a little odd, for a man, and not entirely in the interests of the newborn child.

And so,

And as we’re in the realm of squint-and-pretend:

The term lactation is, however, doing a lot of heavy lifting. Men who pretend to be women, and who take large doses of cross-sex hormones, subsequently developing facsimile breasts, are unlikely to lactate anything adequately nourishing for a child.

Given sufficiently high doses of female hormones, and given sufficiently zealous pumping, some men can be made to secrete a substance from their nipples, albeit unreliably and in very limited quantities – but the resulting discharge is of questionable value to a newborn baby:

As Dr Maja Bowen notes here,

Or, as lawyers for Ms Sussex put it,

At which point, it’s perhaps worth mentioning that the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where this very modern drama is unfolding, determined that Mr Buckley’s legal team “did not have to hand over medical evidence over the chemical makeup of the fluid” being forced upon his newborn child, and that such details, i.e., the facts of the matter, were “not of relevance” to claims of vilification.

Similarly “not of relevance,” it seems, are concerns that such secretions, induced by a cocktail of supposedly “gender-affirming” drugs, may have harmful effects on newborn babies, including possible heart problems and genital development.

And so, either we have a man who believes that he can secrete suitably nourishing fluids from his nipples, or a man who knows that he can’t in fact do this, but is determined to indulge his bizarre preoccupation anyway, despite the warnings of attending medical professionals, and regardless of the effect on a newborn baby:

Mr Buckley has also announced that “experiencing arousal while breastfeeding” is “nothing to be ashamed of.”

Which possibly tells us something about the motivations in play.

Where employers must accommodate impossible pregnancies:

A lot of people have struggled to believe me when I say that the Australian Human Rights Commission is giving pregnancy protections in law to men who claim to be woman, because it’s so stupid it’s hard to believe anyone would say it.

Enjoy: pic.twitter.com/IveqVhN9KG

— Sall Grover (@salltweets) May 26, 2026

One more time. When you surrender to the lie, complications will ensue.

There may be perfectly rational reasons not to employ a cross-dressing man. Practical workplace complications, bathroom use, likely mental health issues, not wishing to participate in someone else’s psychodrama, things of that kind. A fear of him becoming pregnant is not, I’d suggest, one of them.

Previous adventures in the Land of Before Logic, where everything is terribly progressive, competitively so, can be found in the archives.

Among which, the “multicultural playgroup” in Sydney that’s all about “diversity” and “celebrating difference,” and which therefore turns away four-year-olds and their mothers for being “too white.” And where parents of suspicious pallor are promptly interrogated by staff on their “cultural background.”

And we mustn’t forget the implausible sorrows of Ms Cindy Prior, an administrator at the Queensland University of Technology, who invoked the “trauma” of sweating when politely questioned by students about the need for racially segregated computer labs.

Ms Prior, a woman of aboriginal descent, saw fit to seek damages of $250,000 from the students in court, where she claimed to have suffered “psychiatric injury” as a result of this enquiry. What with all the sweating. Ms Prior told the court that, such was her distress, she was “unable to continue working face-to-face with white people.” Ms Prior also objected to being “found ridiculous.”

Happily, her vexatious legal action, directed at three students, two staff members and the university itself, was not successful. It remains unclear whether anyone at the university belatedly realised that a job entailing the denial of access to computer resources on the basis of race – specifically, being white – might attract racists with personality disorders.

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

Via the comments, and the pages of Gay Community News, more attempts to justify the odd and improper:

Ah, a glimmer of realism, one might think. Perhaps the fever is passing.

Or put another, less dramatic way, cross-dressing men will be excluded from ladies’ toilets.

And yet.

You see, not being allowed to violate the intimate boundaries of other people – specifically, women – in order to exult in a deception, a sexual fantasy – is deemed both oppressive and terribly unfair. Indeed, “cruel and demonising.”

We’re then told, in ways both emphatic and unconvincing, that restoring normal proprieties to toilets and changing rooms is “actually dangerous for cis people as well.”

If a law keeping weird, cross-dressing men out of ladies’ toilets and changing rooms doesn’t sound obviously dangerous to women – unlike those aforementioned weird, cross-dressing men – an attempt at persuasion is made. Or at least some crumbs are scraped into a pile:

As you might imagine, the word many is doing some heavy lifting, to a degree one might call deceptive. However, we’re steered towards a handful of examples, spread over a decade, in which actual women were mistaken for cross-dressing men and questioned on their use of female spaces:

A slightly absurd situation, granted. Though readers will note the phrase a man twice her size – and perhaps ponder how that phrase might inform objections to men intruding in women’s intimate spaces. Including rape shelters, where, as we’ve seen, events much like a nightmare can rapidly unfold.

Because it turns out that when forcing brutalised women to share a space with mentally ill men, the result is not, amazingly, one long, girly pillow-fight.

Oh, and we mustn’t forget Mr Morgane Oger, mentioned here, who spends his time campaigning to financially cripple women’s rape shelters, on grounds that said shelters don’t also cater to cross-dressing men, i.e., men much like himself. A preoccupation that possibly tells us quite a bit about the kind of man he is.

The author then performs a bold rhetorical manoeuvre:

Female readers – sorry, “so-called ‘biological women'” – are welcome to say whether they would feel safer in toilets and changing rooms with or without the presence of weird, cross-dressing men who feel entitled to violate normal boundaries. And whether the overlap of cross-dressing and unsavoury phenomena is a thing one might wish to bear in mind.

Unsurprisingly, the piece includes many questions of a somewhat disingenuous nature. Among which,

And,

Regarding the latter, it turns out that human beings are actually quite good at determining the sex of other people, especially of adults, and especially men. With studies suggesting an accuracy very close to 100%, even in restricted conditions – i.e., no visible hair, no make-up, no facial hair, ears hidden, no movement, etc.

The author of the quoted piece, Mr Sophie Molly, aka Sophie Sparkles, aka Euan Weddell, is, you’ll be shocked to hear, one of those weird, cross-dressing men. The ones that women and girls should welcome into their toilets and changing rooms. His activities include boasting of demanding needless bra fittings from lingerie department shop assistants, and sharing photos of himself wearing only a ball gag and improvised nipple-clamps.

So, hey, nothing to worry about, ladies.

At which point, readers may wish to consider some of the factors pointedly not mentioned by Mr Molly. Among which, the fact that the incidents he refers to, in which actual women have been challenged on their use of female spaces, are not only extremely rare, but have only occurred since cross-dressing men – men much like Mr Sophie Molly – have started barging into women’s spaces, heightening sensitivities. Which one might think has some bearing on the case he’s trying to make.

As commenter Ollq puts it,

Indeed.

Should any readers be blissfully unfamiliar with the boastful, territory-marking nature common to such boundary violations, a compendium of intrusions can be found here. Though I should add that the linked video, while strongly recommended, is rather vivid and not for the faint of heart.

Update:

One of Mr Sophie Molly’s favoured slogans is “Trans led journalism that reports the truth behind the lies.” Which is almost funny, in a grim kind of way.

Setting aside Mr Sophie Molly’s implausible omissions, contrived framing and ludicrous hyperbole, we’re left with a claim that a law keeping mentally ill men and cross-dressing perverts out of spaces where women and girls get undressed is “actually dangerous” for women and girls and should therefore be abandoned.

Why, it’s almost as if men who lie continually – whose “identity” is premised on an attempt to deceive – and to coerce – are not entirely trustworthy.

Fancy that.

I thought that might get your attention.

And now, in the interests of raising awareness and fostering sensitivity, in the name of visibility, I bring you the travails of the modern cross-dressing man:

You’ve heard of foot fet!sh but are you prepared for transgender toe dysphoria pic.twitter.com/kIuJTGsjxV

— Exulansic (@TTExulansic) April 12, 2026

You see, that second toe “feels like a man toe to me.”

Oh, and the sound of his pee. That also induces feelings of dysphoria. Which I suppose one might rephrase as awareness of the pretence. The attempt to falsify and deceive. So as to venture where one shouldn’t:

Possibly on account of being a mentally ill man getting his kicks, his affirmation jollies, in the women’s toilets.

Previously: When your feet aren’t being affirmed as non-binary.

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

Three snippets on a theme.

First up, because we’ve been starved of irony, some news from Brazil:

Because when you think of the dignity of women, you immediately picture drag queens.

Mr Hilton, a member of the Socialism and Liberty Party, has responded to his critics – people suggesting that perhaps the president of a Women’s Rights Committee might be an actual, you know, woman – by denouncing them as “LGBTphobes” and “defenders of paedophilia.” Which may strike readers as a little rich, given statistical realities.

On which, more shortly.

Mr Hilton has filed a criminal complaint against one of his critics, via the Public Prosecutor’s Office of São Paulo – and demands for the equivalent of $1.9 million dollars – on grounds that said critic failed to perceive Mr Hilton as a woman. A failure to affirm, or indeed to hallucinate, that Mr Hilton has seen fit to construe as “violence.”

And because a cake needs icing,

Meanwhile, in the laugh-a-minute world of transgender Reddit moderators:

And from Rhode Island’s educational bureaucracy:

But remember, dear citizen, these are Things That Never Happen.