Or, Wooing And Titillation, The Transgender Way.

It has to be said that, until today, hot prosthetic pics is a series of words I’ve had little cause to use. But we must, I’m told, make an effort to keep up with The Current Thing, and thereby become engorged with sensitivity and whatnot. And so, from the Reddit forum r/ftm – where ladies who wish to be perceived as men seek out the counsel of their peers – I bring you this:

In the subsequent comments, affirmation ensues:

Eliza Mondegreen adds, “Peak It’s the thought that counts.”

Previously and related, this dysmorphic being – a “Latinx genderfluid personal trainer” and a “trans 2Spirit DEI consultant,” pronouns “they/he/she” – opted for a “seven-inch in a tan colour.” With additional adhesive.

Best used on a clean, dry surface.

For those who wish to know more, there are, of course, online shopping options. Viewer discretion is advised.

Update, via the comments, on being a parent with a pseudo-penis:

However, the children, we’re assured, “have seen my adult toys.”

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

From the Telegraph, some healthcare news:

Can you guess the offensive, verboten word?

One might think that the employees having babies and therefore on maternity leave are, in fact, by definition, mothers. One might even think that a hospital, and a maternity hospital in particular, is a place where physical realities of this kind would be difficult to avoid. And yet.

While none of the hospitals’ current staff classified themselves as confused about which of the two sexes they are, it is, I suppose, possible that at some point one of the mothers taking maternity leave may, potentially, be sexually dysmorphic – i.e., mentally ill. But mental illness, even fashionable mental illness, isn’t generally something that one should affirm. Nor should it be a basis for the coercion of others. Farce, after all, soon loses its charm.

And these grifting monomaniacs appear to have their feet firmly under the taxpayer-funded table. Such that, even in hospitals regarded as doing nowhere near enough, rainbow ‘Pride’ lanyards swing freely around countless employee necks, “painted rainbow walkways” already assail the eye, along with innumerable rainbow-adorned posters and rainbow staff badges, and at least one “LGBT+ progress flag” flutters gaily from a dedicated flagpole.

In the same hospitals, unused tampons are abundant in the men’s toilets, and the womanhood of expectant female patients is being dutifully downplayed – one might say marginalised – lest the pretentious and unhinged feel in some way anomalous. Hospital staff are expected to introduce themselves to patients by gratuitously announcing their pronouns. As if their sex might otherwise be difficult to fathom.

The “diversity” assessments also insist that gynaecology services must “take… additional action to support trans and non-binary patients.” Specifically, dysmorphic women – women who wish to be perceived as men – should be spared having to sit in “a busy, gendered waiting room,” where the presence of other women may induce psychological discomfort and feelings of “dysphoria.” Instead, such women should be provided with “an adjoining waiting room that matches their affirmed gender.” In short, a waiting room for men in need of gynaecological attention.

We’re also told that gynaecology departments should remove “gendered names (e.g. ‘Women’s Health’),” as this may also make transgender visitors feel unhappy. The words “mother” and “woman” should, we learn, be replaced with the word “client.” The feelings of other, non-dysmorphic female patients on this matter, or on any of the matters raised, are not explored and are seemingly of zero interest.

Regarding the demanded erasure of the words mother and woman, another complaint is aired by our “diversity” overlords:

A backlog of other “diversity” demands, that is. The ones being churned out at a boggling rate and with manic enthusiasm.

Among which, a demand that the term “heterosexual partnership” be replaced with “opposite-sex partnership,” on grounds that “bisexual people in opposite-sex partnerships” may “not classify themselves as being in a heterosexual partnership.”

Despite actually being in one.

At which point, readers may wish to imagine a bisexual chap, one in a relationship with a woman, arriving at a hospital with a fractured wrist and having the time to complain that his paperwork doesn’t allow him to stipulate that his heterosexual relationship with said woman is merely conditional and doesn’t preclude other, more manly entanglements at some future date.

Because when you’re fixing a chap’s fractured wrist, you obviously need to know about his bisexuality. And hey, priorities.

As part of the “diversity” assessment, feedback from hospital staff is solicited, presumably to determine the exact level of ideological conformity. However, much of this feedback has been denounced as “transphobic,” or “homophobic,” or insufficiently affirming of “pansexual” or “asexual” people. Examples of such inexcusable wickedness are included in the sixty-eight-page assessment report. For instance,

And,

For readers on the verge of hyperventilated gasping, paper bags can be found under your seats.

Other supposedly scandalising staff comments are offered:

And,

The feedback quoted above is of course deemed worthy of a “content warning” and is prominently flagged as both bigoted and a “cause for concern.” One warranting “further investigation” by the employee’s superiors. Apparently, for Stonewall and the LGBT Foundation, and by extension the NHS, these are questions that needn’t be answered – and indeed one mustn’t ask.

Behold the new unsayable.

And in never-happy news:

You are not an ally to the TQ+ unless you affirm every single delusion.

Even if a person goes by all pronouns… using ones that align with their sex is still going to be wrong. pic.twitter.com/7xWXu44v4L

— L G B (@L__G__B) November 6, 2023

She’s “genderfluid,” you see, and “goes by all pronouns.” But if insufficiently pretentious people refer to her as she – i.e., accurately – this simply won’t do and scolding will ensue. And your “ally” status, which you’re supposed to crave and be willing to beg for, will be downgraded to merely “performative.” Despite the claim that she’s, like, you know, totally fine with “all pronouns.”

Because the scolding must never end. The scolding being the point.

Update, via the comments, where Jen adds,

It does seem to be more of a commitment than self-respect – or indeed sanity – would allow. What with the round-the-clock monitoring of pronoun earrings and pronoun bracelets, and double-sided pronoun lanyards, which can of course change, or be combined in absurdly complicated ways, at any point during the day, based on a whim, a mood swing, or a slight change in air pressure.

It would, I think, be simpler to just find some better friends.

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Scrolling through X, formerly Twitter, two items caught my eye. The first, from the publication laughingly referred to as Scientific American, where we are told, in no uncertain terms:

I’ll give you a minute to process that. Let it roll around your mind. And do note the loaded, rather question-begging word inequity.

The second item, some terribly modern sporting news:

A trans-identified male student seized the title of "Fastest Sophomore Girl" at a cross country championship in Maine this past weekend.

Soren Stark-Chessa, who beat the female racers by 90 seconds, previously ranked 172nd in the Freshman Boys category.https://t.co/xiwRuPJI2J

— REDUXX (@ReduxxMag) October 23, 2023

In videos of the race, several spectators can be heard shouting, not without cause, “Way to cheat, bro.”

In sports that are dependent on skills other than speed, endurance, and raw power – say, archery or shooting – the difference in peak male and female performance may be negligible. But where such things are decisive – as in most sports – to not concede the obvious requires a feat of ideological contortion – a kind of learned stupidity.

And as seen by the inclusion and near-inevitable triumph of Mr Stark-Chessa, our “Fastest Sophomore Girl,” pretending at an Olympic level is very much in fashion.

See also:

As performance coach Steve Magness notes here,

And cheating, as seen above, would presumably become an applauded norm. Or a heckled farce. I suppose it could go either way:

But hey, pride.

It turns out that those inherent biological differences are quite important. In terms of elite sprinting and endurance running, they result in a male advantage of around ten or twelve percent. Ditto cycling, swimming, high-jumping, skating, and many other sports, where performance differences by sex range from around five percent to, in long-jumping, around twenty.

For elite male and female weightlifters – in the same weight class – the difference in performance is around thirty percent. It’s also worth noting that men have greater grip strength than similarly trained women, about sixty percent more, and have vastly greater punching ability – more than double.

As Mr Magness adds here,

But as we’ve seen – and seen quite vividly – we mustn’t expect too much from the current, scrupulously woke, editor-in-chief of Scientific American.

Updated via the comments.

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.