Come, let us turn to the pages of Men’s Health, where Zachary Zane, a “sex writer, author, and ethical Boyslut,” answers “pressing sex questions with thorough, actionable advice.”

“Boyslut,” by the way, is,

Not just open, but very, very open.

You see,

Hundreds of people. Of all genders. Hold that thought.

Now, on to the meat of things – the problem faced by Men’s Health reader, Small and Scared:

For the sake of those with delicate sensibilities, I’ll spare you much of the subsequent reply, which concerns insecurities, dodgy surgeries, and “a world obsessed with penis size.” However, the following did catch the eye.

Says Mr Zane,

At which point, readers may note a curious, rather mannered choice of language, an odd asymmetry. Throughout the piece, men are referred to as, well, men; while women – the sex equipped with vulvas and such – are acknowledged as “a person with a vulva,” or “vulva-owners,” or as some disembodied “vulva,” on which sex is performed.

As if one were being intimate only with an abstracted set of genitals, and not with the woman of whom those genitals are a part.

Whether women so described are likely to be grateful for this phrasing, and instantly aroused by such erotic poetry, I leave to others. Though I’m now wondering whether the publication in which the above appears should be renamed Prostate-Havers’ Health, or Beings With Penis Health. Something along those lines. Or would that be silly?

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Further to this, and lifted from the comments:

One of my favourite things about The Age Of Stupid is that we’re expected to find a man wearing women’s clothes either:

A. Immediately absolutely hilarious, what a laugh eh
B. Not remotely funny at all, how dare you

Depending entirely on what that man wants. pic.twitter.com/Ju9wBkvqd5

— Gareth Roberts (@OldRoberts953) September 25, 2023

The New Rules Of Pretending, illustrated here, aren’t entirely coherent, even if one were willing to play along. On the one hand, fat, screeching drag queens are supposedly comedic and a kind of jolly panto, something exaggerated and silly, and suitable for children. Something to make the kiddies laugh.

But on the other hand, dysmorphic men and autogynephiles, who are often difficult to distinguish from drag queens, are supposedly Beings Of Infinite Seriousness And Validity, and even a raised eyebrow can result in finger-wagging and accusations of hatred. And so the sight of a cross-dressing man is something that we must find both absurd and amusing, and, simultaneously, not at all funny.

It’s a tricky manoeuvre. I mean, do we chuckle or not?

And what about this sinewy nymph?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Some more this-never-happens news, this time at a gym in Monroe, Georgia. We’ll start with the gym’s profession of modish piety:

In short, female customers who perceive incongruity, discomfort, and possibly danger should simply ignore those perceptions. Danger, it seems, is something one can now just pretend away.

Needless to say, reality begs to differ:

I’ll spare you the more graphic details, which can be found via the link above. However, Mr Dixon’s history of indecency, threats, and sexual intimidation is quite extensive, and the women and girls on whom he preyed were left in little doubt as to his maleness and state of erotic agitation.

No less eye-catching are the gym’s efforts to pretend away the events occurring on its premises and as a direct result of its own stated policy:

You see, in the progressive pecking order, the fantasies of sexually dysmorphic men – and the preferences of male sex offenders – are of much greater importance than any “discomfort” felt by the women and girls on whom the former groups choose to impose themselves. Women and girls whose role, it seems, is merely to understand and tacitly affirm. To be reluctant accessories to some strange man’s psychodrama, while remaining free of judgement. Which is frowned upon.

Because the modern, not-at-all-insane response to repeated acts of indecency and sexual intimidation – by a predatory man in the women’s changing rooms – is to ask him not to keep waving his erection at women and children. On grounds that what he’s waving could somehow be a lady’s penis. Such is the sophistication of our times.

But hey, could be worse:

Update, via the comments:

Regarding the new, utopian role for women and girls – to understand and quietly affirm, while ignoring their own concerns and being entirely free of judgement:

Because dysmorphic men – and male predators – are higher than mere women in the progressive pecking order.

Ladies, know your place.

A tale of a girls’ tennis team, a locker room, and a high-school hiring dispute.

First, the view from afar, all rather fragrant and elevated:

And,

The words “transphobia” and “hate” were of course deployed.

And now the view from close quarters:

See? All totally innocent and above-board. Not weird or creepy at all. Oh, and then there was the time Mr Yates followed a sixteen-year-old girl – a girl he wasn’t coaching – into the girls’ bathroom, otherwise unoccupied, and attempted to strike up a random conversation, resulting in the girl’s alarm and some hurried texting.

The reprimand mentioned above – or rather, reprimands, because, well, what’s behaviour without a pattern? – did not seem to deter Mr Yates. Nor did the provision of private bathroom and changing facilities, typically used by sports officials, including coaches. Direct appeals from the girls also failed to discourage him from parading around their locker room in a bra-and-panties ensemble and various states of undress. Such that the girls were left in little doubt that their cross-dressing coach was, as one board member put it, “still fully a man.” And all while seeking out details of the girls’ menstruation cycles and their preferences in underwear.

Indeed, when subsequently challenged, Mr Yates, seen here, invoked “discrimination” and insisted that he is entitled to use “any bathroom.” The school is currently weighing the views of parents against the prospect of legal action and accusations of “transphobia,” with another meeting on the matter scheduled for September. Mr Yates is, he says, “completely overwhelmed with how the community is coming out and supporting me.”

At which point, readers may wonder whether such overwhelming support, largely from progressive women, is actually part of the problem.

Above, Mr Yates, being supported.

Update, via the comments, where Nikw211 adds,

Well, one might think so. And yet here we are.

Still, it’s interesting to see how Mr Yates’ supporters – again, largely progressive women – will merrily elevate themselves with the airing of modish views, their displays of compassion and inclusivity, while in effect screwing over the girls. Girls, who, by disapproving, even politely, become low-status.

Update 2:

A decision has been reached regarding the future of Mr Yates’ teaching career. And by extension, his workplace interest in the panties of young girls. See if you can guess which way it went.

Update 3:

The further adventures of our strapping madam.

I’d suggest that this is precisely what raises doubts as to Ms Ashley Markham’s fitness to be a school principal in charge of 12-year-olds.

This is a school principal. These are the people in charge of your children’s education. pic.twitter.com/kJOZtPhmal

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 21, 2023

To boast of abandoning reality at the drop of a hat – and by extension, coercing others to be unrealistic too – and to boast of creating an environment in which manipulative pretension and mental illness thrive – is an odd moral flex.

Readers are welcome to ponder exactly how “safe” an environment is in which such practised affectations are dominant or mandatory, and in which one can expect to be scolded and punished for not wishing to pretend, for not wishing to become dishonest and absurd.

Oh, and by the way, should you ask Ms Markham about the implications of her position – say, as touched on above – she may make a smug and dismissive TikTok video in which she expects you to pay her $100 an hour, plus an extra $250, for an expert “consultation” on why she is right.

Lifted from the comments, which you’re reading of course.