In educational news:

No, wait. Let’s not rush to conclusions.

However, I think we can walk towards said conclusions at a fairly steady pace.

Since you ask,

Because naffly suggestive pseudonyms are exactly what you hope for at a kindergarten. In this case, at Mildred B. Poole Elementary School.

The educator in question, whose actual name has not been disclosed, took to social media to express his indignation at being asked not to wear his false tail at work. “People wanna be straight up pearl clutching bitches,” he said, in a teacherly manner. Among images of stabbed and bleeding teddy bears, and while describing himself as a “butt-sniffing wolf bitch.”

Parents also suggested that a cross-dressing kindergarten teacher wearing mini-skirts, a BDSM dog collar and black fishnet stockings was, all things considered, a tad inappropriate.

However, despite this assumed imperviousness to normal consequences, the educator in question has since been removed from his paid proximity to children.

Previously in the world of suboptimal hiring decisions.

Because every parent wants their 11-year-old children conscripted into the cross-dressing psychodrama of a mentally unstable teacher, a man thrilled by the thought of children seeing him in various states of undress while discussing “kink” and sexual positions.

“I’m not a predator,” said the teacher, Mr Lamere. “I’m just a woman who happens to be super tall and hot.”

If the incident linked above isn’t sufficiently concerning, I do have more:

A safe place in which he threatens to shoot them. With his collection of firearms.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links, etc.

Canada, I mean.

Following this eye-widening farce, in which a mentally ill woman claimed to be crushed and psychologically violated by a haircut booking form, I bring you a vision of things to come:

And thus a pretext for legislative punishment and financial ruin.

Because you must defer to the claims of people whose perceptions are wildly unreliable, at least regarding themselves. And because you mustn’t notice the overlap of cross-dressing and unsavoury phenomena, as Mr Neufeld did. Lest it bruise the egos of the Officially Downtrodden, who must be spared any whisper of contradiction or exposure to statistics.

And so we arrive at compulsory question-begging. No other possibilities being permissible, it seems.

Oh, and gloating, vaguely threatening cross-dressing men:

Threaten me all you like. I still won’t pretend to believe in gender identities. https://t.co/xkPFJZTGWL

— Mia Hughes (@_CryMiaRiver) February 21, 2026

Mr Oger, quoted above, spends his time campaigning to financially cripple women’s rape shelters, on grounds that said shelters don’t also cater to cross-dressing men, i.e., men much like himself. A preoccupation that possibly tells us quite a bit about the kind of man he is.

Presumably, absurd and sweeping rulings of the kind seen above will inhibit questioning of the motives in play, and will deter people from acknowledging distinctions between autogynephiles, transvestites, opportunists, and people with sexual dysmorphia, and deter them from considering the possible causes of that dysmorphia, including, quite often, childhood sexual abuse.

Which is to say, it will stupefy. It will make dishonesty mandatory. Because you mustn’t be allowed to determine for yourself what it is you’re looking at.

It will also give enormous leverage to spiteful bedlamites.

Which doesn’t strike me as an entirely utopian scenario.

Chicken detected. || Heirloom discussed. || Today’s word is dexterity. || Switches and reels, 1979. || Bang to rights. || Because we’re doing axes now. || Little Miss Biohazard. || Bumping and grinding. || She gets that they’re confused. || She’s not even kidding, you hear. || Chillin’ at the gym. || Alan. || And they jiggle. || Tongue action, 1982. || The cave houses of Kandovan. || Clowns with pronouns discuss “queer animals.” (h/t, Laurie) || The progressive retail experience, parts 701, 702 and 703. || Not entirely unrelated. || He had to explain. || They’re roses. || Knight Rider. || Tricky situation. || Question asked. || Hot and strong, the way you like it. || Her magic shoe didn’t work, it seems. || Dream Cars of the 1950s, parts 1, 2, 3 and 4. (h/t, Elephants Gerald) || And do feel free to suggest a fitting response.

To enable extra commenting options – including @username mentions, comment editing, upvotes, custom avatars, and live notifications – scroll down to the black ‘Meta’ box at the very bottom of the page and click register. It’s free and quite painless.

For additional rumblings, follow me on X.

And in absurd, wearying narcissism news, a new realm of human suffering has been discovered:

Well, ladies’ haircuts generally take longer. And this has to be scheduled accordingly.

No laughing at the back. Being a made-up cartoon character is a serious business.

Naturally, this reminder of reality had to be punished, at length, and so,

Because just, you know, getting over yourself was never an option.

And this being Canada, a precedent has been set. More rumblings of boutique victimhood, and opportunist chiselling by mentally ill men and women, will doubtless ensue.

A demonstration, were one needed, that men and women who pretend to be “non-binary,” miraculously unsexed beings – a fantasy to which you must be made to defer – may not have the best of intentions. Indeed, theirs may be a world of self-preoccupation and unrelenting spite.

Says she. Supposedly because of a haircut booking form.

Readers may wish to ponder whether putting small businesses at the mercy of the mentally ill – say, people with a history of narcissistic ‘activism’ and repeated hunger strikes, i.e., threats of self-harm – is an obvious path to utopia. And whether such indulgence and affirmation will result in a better, more caring society, or merely a twitchier and more neurotic one.

Oh yes, nearly forgot. The hair in question:

Via Mia Hughes.

Update:

And because the situation isn’t sufficiently unhinged.

Some theories, in a sequence.

First up, Dr Daisy Dixon, a philosopher of art at Cardiff University:

my theory is that a reason these men don’t like tattoos on women is because it’s an outward sign of creative agency and self-ownership – it signals that the woman’s body is hers and no one else’s – it aesthetically undermines and rejects men’s felt entitlement to our bodies 🖤 https://t.co/EwlxW9oxHQ

— Dr Daisy Dixon (@daisyldixon) February 15, 2026

Then, a less lofty and perhaps more plausible take by Tim Newman:

For me it reflects poor decision-making which is downstream of poor judgement. Not something you really want in a relationship. https://t.co/9U2u4Y2OG0

— Tim Newman (@whitesundesert) February 16, 2026

And Devon Eriksen offers this, which you may want to read in full:

There is a sort of woman who is deeply and personally offended that Men don’t like Thing.

And she always has Theory.

Theory is about how Men don’t like Thing because they are Bad. All of this is explained by Story.

Story might be plausible, and make sense, but it’s one of… https://t.co/ROC5Bab0wR

— Devon Eriksen (@Devon_Eriksen_) February 15, 2026

I should add that there may in fact be more than one Daisy Dixon. But still.

And because you like footnotes.

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