And in transgender-sex-offender-urine-hurling news:

The chap in question – known, by himself, as “Sophie Koko” – originates from Kazakhstan and boasts an extensive history of sexual offences, numbering over fifty. His leisure activities – outside of bottling his own urine and then spraying it on children – include searching out articles about his crimes and then threatening any commenters who dare to “misgender” him.

Despite his prodigious criminal activity, often repeated in the same locations, Mr Koko – complete with bicycle and polka-dot dress – proved difficult to apprehend. Possibly due to the public being told by both the police and the media that the person engaging in such activities, and for whom they should be alert, was somehow a woman.

During Mr Koko’s trial, the prosecution demanded “a prison sentence of one year and eight months without parole.” Which, for a man with a catalogue of fifty offences – largely against children, at whom he flashed his genitals and threw his own bodily waste – may strike readers as a tad lenient. Judge Sonja Robe proved even more forgiving, opting for probation, 100 hours of community service, and “a requirement to visit a counselling centre for transgender individuals.”

Perhaps sensing the atmosphere of weird indulgence, Mr Koko took to social media, where he blamed his habitually criminal behaviour on those who dared to register the actual sex of the person threatening violence against women, including murder, and spraying children with his own piss:

Because of you.

And that whole piss-bottling thing, already underway, was in no way a sign of impending derailment or a pre-existing urge. So live in fear, ladies, lest you say the wrong thing. Or notice the wrong facts.

Consider this an open thread.

Or, The Cronenberg Chronicles.

Below, Peter Boghossian and Mia Hughes, author of The WPATH Files, discuss the twisted history of transgender ideology. Topics touched on include the audacious propagation of pseudoscience; social contagion and the capture of institutions; experiments on children; and the psychology of doubling-down.

It’s two hours long and dense with detail, but much of that detail is likely to widen the eyes. It’s possibly worth noting, as Ms Hughes does around 01:16:00, that as the trans phenomenon has flourished – if that’s quite the right word – rates of anorexia and cutting have fallen, suggesting some correlation. Perhaps some shifting fashion, a swapping of self-harm signals. Given the subject matter and its realities, the squeamish may wish to proceed with caution.

A continuation of the discussion above – covering the abandonment of rigour and basic professionalism, surgical horrors, and the “insane experiment” of puberty suppression – can be found here.

Previously: The Bedlamite Contagion. From which, this:

This, then, is where we are. Doesn’t seem a good place to be, frankly.

Another day, another drama involving the changing rooms of schoolgirls – and another illustration of how wokeness – all that progressive piety – can be a mask for other motives:

And hey, what could possibly go wrong?

Ah.

Quite right, one might think.

Oh.

“You wicked girls will undress in front of this weird, cross-dressing boy, and you will do it over and over again.”

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

Readers are invited to ponder the psychology in play at this terribly progressive school. The triumphal righteousness of compelling thirteen-year-old schoolgirls to undress in front of a mentally ill male or opportunist pervert. A mentally ill male or opportunist pervert that the schoolgirls do not trust. Resulting in the girls feeling frightened and upset.

Imagine that tingle of power. All wrapped in a drag of modish piety.

After Mrs Georgas’ daughter refused to take part, understandably, a compromise of sorts was suggested:

You see,

Entirely at the expense of others.

Such that, “the discomfort or privacy concerns of other students, teachers, or parents are not valid reasons to deny or limit the full and equal use of facilities based on a student’s gender-related identity.” Instead, any girl who doesn’t appreciate being ordered to undress in front of a boy – a boy she does not trust – will be deemed the aberrant party, the one whose behaviour is problematic.

And so, rather than relocate the “trans-identified” boy to (a) the boys’ changing room, or (b) an existing “gender-neutral” space for His Super-Special Self, any girls who complain about the incongruity, the moral inaptness, are to be relocated and isolated. Leaving more compliant girls to endure the indignity and weirdness. Such is wokeness.

At a subsequent public meeting of the Deerfield School District 109 School Board, held on Thursday, Mrs Georgas explained,

Well, yes, pretty much.

And yet the following speaker, a visibly self-satisfied woman named Charles Friedman, who declares herself “a transgender person” and who also just happens to have a transgender child – hey, what are the odds? – was all too happy to disregard the particulars of Mrs Georgas’ complaint and its wider implications.

Indeed, the lady named Charles, a trans activist – one of many present – dismissed the concerns above as “bullying.” Presumably on grounds that not allowing boys to barge into the changing rooms of thirteen-year-old girls and then watch them undress is an act of oppression. A denial of basic rights.

Those with an appetite for grim surrealism can watch the outpourings of subsequent speakers, for whom pronoun stipulation is a thing, for whom big earrings and nail polish establish womanhood, and for whom the creepy violation of thirteen-year-old schoolgirls is a basis for applause.

Should any tender-hearted readers be tempted to assume that the above must be some one-off aberration, by all means think again. And do note the updates to that particular farce.

Previous changing-room adventures – in which the word pattern comes to mind – can be found here, here, here, and here.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding this,

Liz adds, not unreasonably,

Indeed. And yet, in the video of the school board meeting, subsequent speakers, all trans activists, many of whom travelled from far out of town, casually dismiss or ignore the clearly stated concerns, and denounce Mrs Georgas as a bully, a bigot, and, bizarrely, a “white supremacist.”

Because you’re not allowed to object to your children being psychologically abused.

And the option proposed by the school, and affirmed by Ms Charles Friedman, our self-satisfied trans activist – the one who just happens to have a transgender child – is likely to result in further drama. Or the same drama repeated.

If girls who object to a boy’s presence in their changing room are told to change somewhere else, and not in their own changing room, then it seems entirely possible that one by one, quite rapidly, the other girls will follow suit, resulting in the cross-dressing boy having the girls’ changing room all to himself. At which point, this may be invoked as yet another form of bigotry and oppression.

And perhaps the boy or his activist parents, or likely activist parent, will demand he be given access to whichever new space the girls have been obliged to retreat to. Because his psychodrama must be imposed on others, regardless of their objections. And around we go again.

And – as so often – note just how readily the school administrators, these uniformly progressive women, will sell out their supposed sisters. The daughters of their neighbours. In order to look fashionable, and therefore high-status.

It’s also, I think, worth noting the demeanour of Ms Friedman, our trans activist. During her speech, she shows little interest in the concerns of parents. Instead, she is dismissive, self-satisfied and visibly triumphal. The tone is basically, “We have the power over your children now. Suck it up, bitches.”

I can’t help but think that’s rather telling.

I should add that the degree of woke perversity – such that girls who object to the humiliation are the ones deemed problematic and aberrant – is so pronounced that a sense of unreality may ensue. For instance, readers may wish to imagine themselves at the school board meeting above, hearing Mrs Georgas speak, and then hearing her being booed, called absurd names, and her concerns being gleefully dismissed. By men in bad drag.

In light of which, it’s difficult to see any plausible common ground. When activist attendees would rather jeer and preen, and call concerned parents bigots and racists, rather than address their actual concerns, it’s not obvious what room for compromise, or debate, there could be.

And in can-anyone-else-smell-paedophilia? news:

Pictures of mentally ill, self-mutilating men. In kindergarten settings. To facilitate discussions. With pre-school children.

Strange is a good start. Other descriptors are available.

Should any readers be trying to think of reasons not to raise an eyebrow, it should be pointed out that roughly half of sexually dysmorphic male prisoners – so-called trans women – are there for sexual offences, including, quite often, offences against children – a rate that is much higher than that for the male prison population in general, whether for adult sexual offences or paedophilia.

Likewise, dysmorphic men and women report severe childhood abuse, often childhood sexual abuse, at rates far higher than is found in the wider population. Adults who have been violated as children are in turn much more likely to have, shall we say, issues regarding normal boundaries, and to act inappropriately with minors.

The consequences of which aren’t exactly hard to find. To say nothing of child abusers who invoke some sudden-onset transgenderism once their activities have been discovered and interrupted.

In light of which, encouraging small children to “accept others as they are” – a euphemism for not being wary of sexually dysmorphic men, a demographic among which paedophilia is much more common – seems rather unwise. For reasons we’ve seen many times. Yet this pre-emptive dulling of any wariness is the stated goal of the poster’s creator, illustrator and activist Tyler Feder.

As one might.

However, this is the bedlamite timeline, and so,

And,

At which point, the words foxes and henhouse spring to mind.

And it has to be said, “Your Four-Year-Old Children Will Look At Our Pictures Of Weird, Naked Men” is an odd flex. A peculiar hill to die on. 

If you read the full Reduxx article, linked above, it doesn’t get any more reassuring. The smell does seem to persist.

Update, via the comments: 

As someone who isn’t by temperament easily scandalised or particularly prudish, I nonetheless find myself in the position of having to say, “Er, are you sure about this? This seems all kinds of weird and inappropriate.”

And it seems to be happening more often than I’d expected.

Sharp-eyed readers may also note the assumption that exposure to, and familiarity with, the subject of transgenderism – and by extension, autogynephilia, and drag queens, and cross-dressing more generally – will invariably make one feel great warmth towards these phenomena – and the things that often go with them.

When in fact, the opposite may be true. And not infrequently.

Update 2:

In the comments, Aelfheld adds, 

Well, even if we assume implausibly benign motives, which may be a bit of an ask, premature exposure to sexuality, even in its more humdrum forms, isn’t generally regarded as beneficial. And it seems to me that transgender people would have an easier ride, and a less contentious group reputation, if they observed the obvious courtesy and stayed the hell away from children.

And yet, as we’ve seen repeatedly, many schools seem to be actively recruiting the psychologically marginal – say, attention-craving men in painted nails and make-up who think “looking cute” is the highest function of those employed as a primary-school educator.

And then there’s the peddling of dysmorphic cartoon pornography to middle-school children, without parents’ knowledge or consent, via which eleven-year-olds are introduced to “vagina slime,” fellatio, and “strap-on hotness,” and the joys of masturbating while driving.

Or middle-school librarians who seem convinced that eleven-year-olds need to know how to whore themselves – and to know that whoring is both valid and empowering. Because they may be transgender and may have to pay for hormones and surgical mutilations.

If this all sounds rather lurid and improbable, do follow the links.

Oh, and frottage-seeking drag queens.

And this hiring of the inapt, the incongruous and inadequate, is done as if it were a way for schools to display their own sophistication and fashionable status. As if this “queering” of children’s minds, this erosion of reality, of probity, of normal boundaries, could have no downsides, no dubious effects.

And of course we’ve encountered things of this kind:

Again, at risk of sounding stuffy, these feats of posturing and perversity do not strike me as wholesome, or a path to a brighter, more fragrant tomorrow.