Or, Please Don’t Bore Our Staff And Customers With Your Weird Compulsions.

In which Madam applauds herself for her own feats of self-preoccupation:

Woman refuses to be professional at work and it’s your fault for being uncomfortable, conservatives. You made her turn down this job. pic.twitter.com/qW4vBsfSkr

— Σ𝕏ulansic 🦎 (@TTExulansic) July 15, 2025

Madam apparently needs us to know that she is “part of the LGBT+ community,” as if we should not only care but be endlessly fascinated, and insists that she needs “to find a workplace that is LGBT+ community friendly.” Quite what this might mean, practically, is not altogether clear, though the implications that come to mind are somewhat limited in their appeal.

As there are only so many ways in which tales of one’s sex life can be shoehorned into workplace conversation, I’m assuming Madam expects those around her to continually acknowledge some boutique complications of her all-important “identity” – fabulist pronouns, an imaginary themness, or something similar. Something very much about her, rather the task at hand.

We’ve been here before, of course:

And speaking of not-at-all unbalanced cross-dressing men:

That would be this chap here, Mr Sasha Yates, whose behaviour didn’t appear to concern the progressive ladies who rushed to his defence to ensure he kept his job after initial complaints. And thereby kept his access to the schoolgirls’ changing rooms, where a bewigged Mr Yates paraded around in his own bra and panties, much to the girls’ discomfort, and while asking those teenage girls about their underwear and menstrual cycles.

The same progressive ladies who denounced as “hate” and “transphobia” any expression of concern, and who elevated themselves with the airing of modish views, their ostentatious displays of inclusivity, while screwing over the schoolgirls being harassed by a cross-dressing creep. Because in the Progressive Pecking Order, expressing discomfort with sexual boundary violations is terribly low-status when the culprit is a man pretending to be a woman.

Or as one progressive lady put it, following complaints of disturbing behaviour,

I’ll give you a moment to process that one. To savour the implications.

To those of us less practised in progressive dissembling, the above would seem to translate as, “It’s okay for the teenage girls in our care to be creeped on repeatedly by a cross-dressing pervert, and consequently left feeling violated and upset, because we have guidance counsellors. And a box of tissues. Also, cross-dressing perverts are very fashionable right now.”

That these sentiments were expressed with great confidence – by a woman – and were left entirely unchallenged by the reporter – also a woman – is quite a thing. It does, I think, tell us something about progressive priorities and which groups are deemed of much less importance.

Still, at least we can savour the irony of claims by Mr Yates’ defenders that we should look at “her [sic] character, not her [sic] gender…”

Readers may recall that Mr Yates’ homemade pornography – which he saw fit to send to a concerned parent, as one does – featured our burly cross-dresser using a kitchen sink as erotic apparatus, and while smoking methamphetamine and asking, coquettishly, “Am I a good meth whore?” A question that every parent hopes to hear from someone entrusted with the care of their children.

Following his self-inflicted exposure and subsequent resignation, supposedly for “ongoing health reasons,” Mr Yates took to a fetish forum to boast of his “coming out” as a “meth whore” – thereby titillating others with an “exposure fetish” – and while simultaneously positioning himself as the victim of a cruel, unfeeling world:

Nature is healing, buddy.

Mr Yates is currently seeking employment as a “transsexual escort.” “I am,” says he, “definitely interested in being pimped out to as many men as possible.”

Again, words that every parent longs to hear.

Whether the schoolgirls whose underwear so intrigued Mr Yates, or their parents, are likely to receive an apology from the school district, or from any of the progressive ladies who dismissed their concerns and accused them of bigotry, remains unclear.

Above, Mr Yates being affirmed by progressive ladies.

Meanwhile, in the world of not-at-all-unbalanced cross-dressing men:

Wait for it.

Do take a moment to steady yourselves.

Darts and blowpipes authorised.

No other possibilities being, it seems, conceivable.

Sharp-eyed readers will be shocked to learn,

A busy social life. Lots of hobbies.

Oh, and musical performance. He does that too.

At the time of writing, the local media and police are still referring to Mr Osterhout as if he were a woman. A delicate flower. Not a deranged 260-pound man who stabs random people and punches children. Fuchsia hotpants notwithstanding.

Above, Mr Osterhout sharing his inner womanliness with random passers-by.

We’ve previously noted the enthusiasm of the police and media for referring to violently deranged cross-dressing men as somehow being ladies, she-people, thereby misleading the public and treating the victims of said men with a bizarre disdain. As seen, for instance, here:

This readiness to deceive has persisted even when the individual in question was arrested for attacking a mother and her four-month-old baby while crazed and shirtless, and even when the purported ladies have been identified via the very male genetic material left at the scenes of their crimes.

But hey. This is where we are now. Pretending is obligatory.

Mr Muldoon steers us to a tale of colliding make-believe:

A very modern headline, I think you’ll agree.

They have training courses, you know, and websites, and a federation. We’re all learning things today.

Ms Howard, it turns out, is a “second-generation witch,” following in the mystical footsteps of her mother, “a high priestess” who “ran a coven in the 1980s.”

A very modern heresy. Resulting in a revoking of membership and denial of access to witchcraft course materials.

The Pagan Federation, however, issued a statement insisting that the womanliness of cross-dressing men is obvious, unassailable and “not up for debate”:

Validity for everyone. Just tilt your head and squint. Apparently, we’re to be told what reality is by people who think they’re witches.

Ah, that Thing That Never Happens.

As these are terribly modern, immensely caring witches, Ms Howard was banned from the organisation’s Facebook page and from the website of the British Druid Order on grounds of being “unequivocally transphobic.” Thereby denying Ms Howard access to the arcane knowledge of “seers and healers,” along with the opportunity to purchase oracle cards, audio recordings of spells and invocations, and “hymns to the divine feminine.” Oh, and guides to coping with stress by wrapping a thick blanket around your head.

No more “walking between worlds,” alas.

At which point, readers may wish to ponder the implied rules of pretending, the hierarchy of make-believe, in which some people pretending to be something that they aren’t are deemed of much greater importance than other people pretending to be something that they aren’t. A world in which pretending one thing now seems to mean that all pretences, of any kind, must be observed.

Further rumblings on the matter, and photographs of uncanny goings-on, can be found here.

By all means consider this an open thread.

Lifted from the comments, a reminder of Teacher Appreciation Week:

This clearly female teacher has a deep voice, do you think it’s from smoking? pic.twitter.com/CGoFhMXy1C

— Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) May 15, 2025

To which Chow Bag replies,

A not unreasonable question, all things considered.

Regarding Mr Look-At-My-Fabulous-Hair-Extensions, I suppose the obvious issue is the self-absorption of our strapping madam, such that he records and then publicly shares classroom videos of himself faffing about with his wig while expecting applause for his feats of fake-hair management. It does rather speak to his priorities and focus. And that’s before we get to the oddly ample fake bosom.

The other issue, I’d say, is the fact that schools have surrendered to cross-dressing men with a rapidity and full-throatedness that is quite remarkable. The place where cross-dressing men should not be – in positions of intimacy with, and authority over, children – is where they seem to find the most gushing welcome and the most ludicrous indulgence. Such that children are coerced to mouth fabulist pronouns and to regurgitate obvious lies.

Despite much higher rates of sexual offending, including offences against children, and similarly high rates of serious mental illness, people who identify as trans appear to be favoured in school hiring. Their numbers, and social-media prominence, does seem noteworthy. Among successful candidates, there is a certain triumphalism. A confident strutting.

And we’ve seen several examples of even the most basic safeguarding measures being abandoned, and an eye-widening disdain for children who report inappropriate behaviour by men in bad wigs. Even when that behaviour would, if indulged in by any other demographic, almost certainly result in immediate dismissal.

As if the safety of children were of much less importance than being seen to affirm cross-dressing men.

Also from the comments:

Supposedly, it’s about making the children feel “comfortable.” Though it occurs to me that the flag’s connotations of coerced pretending, fetishistic mutilation and life-shortening hormone abuse – and generally being subordinate to a cross-dressing man with mental health issues – may have other effects. Say, by transforming a classroom from a place of learning into one of cowed pretension, of deference to the untrue.

And then there’s the not insignificant matter of introducing an element of transvestite farce into the classroom, which may result in children being distracted from the task at hand by the perhaps more immediate question of what the strange man in the wig and padded push-up bra sees when he looks in a mirror.

Readers may also wish to ponder whether children should be imposed upon in this way and should be obliged to pretend, to be dishonest, on a daily basis. Which is to say, pretending not to see the pantomime, and being obliged to participate in the teacher’s psychodrama, for the teacher’s gratification. While any children who demur, who acknowledge the obvious, even politely, run a risk of being disciplined and publicly denounced.

It seems to me this is, at the very least, rude. Some might say abusive.

But hey, this is where we are now. Let the progress wash over you.

Expanded via the comments.