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.

Canada, I mean.

Following this eye-widening farce, in which a mentally ill woman claimed to be crushed and psychologically violated by a haircut booking form, I bring you a vision of things to come:

And thus a pretext for legislative punishment and financial ruin.

Because you must defer to the claims of people whose perceptions are wildly unreliable, at least regarding themselves. And because you mustn’t notice the overlap of cross-dressing and unsavoury phenomena, as Mr Neufeld did. Lest it bruise the egos of the Officially Downtrodden, who must be spared any whisper of contradiction or exposure to statistics.

And so we arrive at compulsory question-begging. No other possibilities being permissible, it seems.

Oh, and gloating, vaguely threatening cross-dressing men:

Threaten me all you like. I still won’t pretend to believe in gender identities. https://t.co/xkPFJZTGWL

— Mia Hughes (@_CryMiaRiver) February 21, 2026

Mr Oger, quoted above, 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.

Presumably, absurd and sweeping rulings of the kind seen above will inhibit questioning of the motives in play, and will deter people from acknowledging distinctions between autogynephiles, transvestites, opportunists, and people with sexual dysmorphia, and deter them from considering the possible causes of that dysmorphia, including, quite often, childhood sexual abuse.

Which is to say, it will stupefy. It will make dishonesty mandatory. Because you mustn’t be allowed to determine for yourself what it is you’re looking at.

It will also give enormous leverage to spiteful bedlamites.

Which doesn’t strike me as an entirely utopian scenario.

And in absurd, wearying narcissism news, a new realm of human suffering has been discovered:

Well, ladies’ haircuts generally take longer. And this has to be scheduled accordingly.

No laughing at the back. Being a made-up cartoon character is a serious business.

Naturally, this reminder of reality had to be punished, at length, and so,

Because just, you know, getting over yourself was never an option.

And this being Canada, a precedent has been set. More rumblings of boutique victimhood, and opportunist chiselling by mentally ill men and women, will doubtless ensue.

A demonstration, were one needed, that men and women who pretend to be “non-binary,” miraculously unsexed beings – a fantasy to which you must be made to defer – may not have the best of intentions. Indeed, theirs may be a world of self-preoccupation and unrelenting spite.

Says she. Supposedly because of a haircut booking form.

Readers may wish to ponder whether putting small businesses at the mercy of the mentally ill – say, people with a history of narcissistic ‘activism’ and repeated hunger strikes, i.e., threats of self-harm – is an obvious path to utopia. And whether such indulgence and affirmation will result in a better, more caring society, or merely a twitchier and more neurotic one.

Oh yes, nearly forgot. The hair in question:

Via Mia Hughes.

Update:

And because the situation isn’t sufficiently unhinged.

Or, An Expert Speaks.

In which a Senate hearing on drug safety takes a somewhat surreal turn:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “Can men get pregnant?”

Dr. Nisha Verma: “I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “The goal is just to establish a biological reality… Can men get pregnant?”

Dr. Nisha Verma: “I take care of people with many… pic.twitter.com/decglkqHkX

— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) January 14, 2026

What struck me was the claim by Dr Nisha Verma, our adjunct assistant professor and “person of science,” that she would be “more than happy to have a conversation” – i.e., regarding whether men can get pregnant – while suggesting quite strongly that this is not in fact the case.

Unless, presumably, Dr Verma were given total and unilateral control of what questions may be asked, and of how they may be asked, of what wording may be used, and of which aspects of reality may be mentioned during any such exchange, should one be permitted.

On grounds that direct, very simple questions, asked seemingly in vain, are “polarising” and thus to be avoided.

It seems to me that if your political worldview, and in-group social status, very much depend on shunning certain fairly obvious questions, exposure to which induces wobbling and an urgent need for word salad, then that worldview has some, shall we say, structural issues.

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