Lifted from the comments, a small snapshot of our times:

Angry bloke on Threadshttps://t.co/u6xVHvoYqr pic.twitter.com/HOV30JB2IX

— 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚕𝚎𝚜 𝙶. 𝙷𝚊𝚛𝚝 🇮🇱 (@charles_hart) October 18, 2025

There’s much that could be commented on – the raging at the innocuous, the dishonest use of the word hate, the projection, the nails and five o’clock shadow combo, the theatrical sweater-pulling and the ostentatiously deep breath, as if superhuman patience were being tested.

To say nothing of the seeming belief that he – Mr Zara Paquette – were barking his instructions directly to Keira Knightley, as if she would be watching and dutifully taking notes. Like a good, obedient woman.

But what strikes me most is the fact that Mr Paquette doesn’t seem to understand that what he wants – i.e., the ability to coerce and dictate, to bully others into lying – is not something that he should want.

Wanting the power to make others tell quite blatant lies about what is and isn’t real, and to thereby make those people cowed and absurd, is what makes him a bad person. A villain in this low-grade cross-dressing drama.

Or, as Wesley Yang put it here,

That this should even need saying is itself quite remarkable. Yet here we are.

From the comments, scenes from Smith College, Massachusetts:

A woman reacted to a banner stating “Women are adult human females” by calling the group holding it “fascists.”pic.twitter.com/8w8oikJX76

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) October 6, 2025

It turns out that when you try to pretend away fundamental realities, as if wishing made it so, any reminder of those realities has to be repressed or erased, or at least shouted at quite loudly.

I believe this was the scene that prompted the meltdown.

Update, via the comments:

Mike D adds,

Well, it does seem to be an illustration of the fact that if you require continual, universal affirmation – i.e., deference – if you need everyone else to pretend something vividly untrue – then you’re unlikely to be happy. The best you could hope for is to surround yourself with people who are willing to lie to you.

It’s worth mentioning, I think, that the trans-identified people I’ve spoken with or seen who seem most content are the ones who can concede the reality of the situation, and who can juggle that reality with their preference to live as if they were the opposite sex, while knowing that they aren’t.

They don’t seem prone to the bedlamite outbursts seen above.

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

I paraphrase, of course. Though not, I think, wildly:

Sorry, still pondering the Swissness of wind instrument repairman.

Well, he’s not wrong. We could, I suppose, list things like pelvis shape, skull shape, bone density, Q-angles and whatnot, and we could mention the very high accuracy of sex determination via forensic examinations based on such variables, but it all seems rather obvious. Almost too silly.

But wait.

Because in the realm of the trans activist, and others who like to pretend things, in this case, two journalists and a teacher, the accumulation of ludicrousness must not be impeded.

And so,

A transcript of the interrogation, in German, can be found here.

It turns out that noticing the obvious – that sexual dysmorphia is a mental health issue, that the skeletons of men and women are quite distinct, and that some members of the so-called “LGBTQI community” are quite extreme in their ambitions, as illustrated by the case itself – has now been deemed taboo, and indeed punishable:

Don’t talk back, citizen. Cross-dressing men are women.

With magic woman bones.

Readers will note the bizarre and emphatic conflation, by Judge Julia Schär, of sexual orientation and sexual dysmorphia – her equating of homosexuality with intolerant transvestism – via which she condemned Mr Brünisholz for an alleged intent to “disparage people on the basis of their sexual orientation in a way that violates human dignity.”

Whether the farce described above does much for human dignity is a question I leave to the reader.

Well, quite.

A reminder, were one needed, that when you surrender to the lie, all manner of distortions will ensue. Best, I think, not to give away the store in the first place.

Oh, and because I know you like a punchline:

Modernity, baby. Bathe in its glow.

Update, via the comments:

Readers with a taste for inadvertent surrealism and colourful epithets – and claims that skeletal analysis is unreliable and irrelevant because “our species isn’t very sexually dimorphic” – may find amusement of a sort over in this related Reddit thread.

There, some commenters, presumably ‘allies’ or themselves trans-identified, denounce the post above and what they consider to be “obsessing over transgenderism,” which seems to mean expressing any reservation or insufficiently flattering thought, “because it literally doesn’t impact your life.”

As if, for instance, women could have no reason to express reservations, and all while commenting on a news item with rather ominous implications, and in which someone’s life was obviously impacted.

As sH2 quips in reply,

Well, indeed. There is, after all, the small matter of probity.

And the implication of such statements, commonplace among trans activists, is that despite the current ubiquity in the media of trans-related issues, and despite efforts to change laws and social norms in ways that create any number of serious problems, and despite the alarming comorbidities of sexual dysmorphia, and despite the eye-widening prevalence of sex offending among the trans-identified… despite all of that, the rest of us should say nothing.

Instead, we’re expected to quietly acquiesce.

Big ask.

And from Australia, more thing-that-never-happens news:

And for some, validation trumps all else.

Because of our thrillingly modern sensitivities, Mr Harper – who favours the name Autumn Tulip Harper – is currently being held in a prison for women.

The details of the case are, I should add, particularly vile.

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

Miki Lorren, a one-time tomboy, “a gay woman living in the conservative south,” has some thoughts:

If you watch one thing today, make it this.

I’m so glad for this marvellous girl. But it was a close call, as she explains.

“You’re just a Tomboy” pic.twitter.com/GZgXwEDJrO

— James Dreyfus (@DreyfusJames) August 29, 2025

Note the presumption of the keen-to-enable teachers.

Ms Lorren has other thoughts worth sharing, among which this:

Well, yes. Quite. And not just weird.

“Teacher Robi,” mentioned in Ms Lorren’s video, has cropped up here before, prompting readers to marvel at her classroom lectures on “non-binary” pronoun woo, which she expects small children to internalise and regurgitate, “every single time,” regardless of physical reality, lest they find themselves being corrected by this bullying narcissist.

Teacher Robi’s low-effort wardrobe solutions, her display of I-make-bad-choices tattoos, and her disdain for anything resembling customary professionalism, also prompted comment. As did the consequent, quite vivid mismatch with her platitudes about the importance of classroom role models.

Readers who are parents are invited to imagine any other scenario in which a scruffily-dressed stranger starts talking to your 8-year-old about her sexuality, her sexual identity, while expecting that same 8-year-old to actively participate in her mental health problems.

Oh, and as Ms Lorren says in one of her other videos,

Via Darleen in the comments. Which you’re reading, of course.