Would you want your child to be taught by someone who looked like this?

I don’t understand why this is covered by gender identity legislation. He identifies as a woman, fine. But there aren’t any women with boobs like this.

It is protected in some Australian states.
I honestly despair of what will happen in the future - I think we are seeing a preview.

If 'gender identity' becomes a protected characteristic in this country, could we see this type of nonsense over here? Or long expensive court battles to stop some guy indulging his....authentic self?

Aaaannd - the news reaches the Daily Mail.

Doing worthy footwork educating the masses.

MCCAIN: Teacher wearing fake boobs is proof we are paralyzed by the PC
mol.im/a/11242967

Well, WiSpa showed us what would happen when a male exposed himself to women and children. Kayla Lemieux shows us what happens when a teacher takes their fetish to work.

WiSpa: Women protesting are attacked.
Lemieux: Well. Nothing.

I just seem to think there appears to be no limit to anything labelled as "trans rights", if activists can't even bring themselves to say that this cross-dressing man has taken it a bit too far then when can they?

It's bad to say it, but at some point you have to give credit to the guy for taking it to such an extreme and still finding no drop-off in support. He's showing how deluded the activists are. The mental gymnastics of the activists is simply staggering.

Can i say thankyou to @MNHQ for allowing us to say here clearly and unequivocally that this is a man displaying a fetish, and involving children in it. I know the f word is a challenging one for you to moderate, but this really cant and shouldnt be papered over.

My children would never step foot in that building again

I am very pro-union, I am not reiterating the follow out of anti-union sentiment: yes, a large part of this is down to Canada cheerfully adopting gender theory whole hog. But in this case there is the added ingredient that in most provinces the teachers’ unions are very strong. It is vanishingly rare for a teacher to get fired. The only times I’ve seen it is in cases of sexual abuse. Incompetent, lazy, physically abusive teachers get sent to training at best and shuffled to other roles/schools at worst. They’ll send a useless teacher to the library or to teach younger kids (who are less likely to complain).

It shouldn’t happen, but it’s absolutely part of the work culture in Canadian schools. Also they’d be worried that not only would the union grieve any attempt to curtail him, but he’d also take them to a human rights tribunal.

He says 'we are committed to supporting all our teachers and staff and students in an environment that upholds their dignity'.

How does allowing a man to impose his fetish on all these people, without their consent, 'uphold their dignity'?

He's only considering one person here - the man who is bringing his fetish to work.

If ‘the dress code is just for students, not for staff’ surely they could immediately implement a dress code and make the penalty for violating the code part of the existing workplace disciplinary procedure?

Then you apply the dress code to ALL staff (knowing only one is likely to violate it) and then ‘Kayla’ has a choice, adhere to the dress code, resign, or participate in the workplace disciplinary procedure?

I know shit all about Canadian employment law but surely if you went through any necessary alterations to contracts procedures and applied it to all, you’d be able to get to a point where wearing those ludicrous cosplay boobs is a sackable offence? Might take a while, mind you.

(I suppose you’d have to ban all external prosthesis that hadn’t been directly prescribed through a medical professional? Or risk ending up with a conduct code that prohibited prosthetic limbs and post breast cancer bra fillers? Not that anyone would need know about those but best to have a clearly defined line that doesn’t involve size specificity? Wouldn’t want to end up with a gauging device like the ones the Royal Mail has for determining large/small letters… wonder how much a doctor would charge to pretend those sex shop silicones were an approved treatment for gender dysphoria?)

I mean, obvs it would be easiest if the school could just put up a no perves sign but Canada had to go through the legal process to stop Ol’ Wax My LadyBalls harassing work-from-home small-business women, so it’s obviously not gonna be simple.

Would a UK school be able to send a teacher straight home in similar circumstances? Or are we boiled frogs too?

The body language of the Head teacher/ spokesperson is interesting. Hands in pockets was something I was explicitly told to avoid doing when addressing a group as a green little graduate and as a trainee teacher. Doesn’t look at all credible or confident.

One rule for adults and another for the students, hardly a mutually respective environment where one group is free to express their gender identity and expression and the other has a dress code. Hypocrisy at its finest.

twitter.com/NewWorldHominin/status/1572435987795677185?cxt=HHwWgsDQyeSMtdIrAAAA

It's breathtaking. We are in the upside down.

Hate speech.

We've really created a monster with the kinds of laws we've put in place.

I think you are making a rather artificial distinction between thought and action.

I would argue that a society that offers not framework for an internal actions and thoughts, or imagines that somehow they are uncontrollable, will have to be quite rigid in enforcing actions externally, through the law or in some other way, because the people produced by that society will not be able to self-regulate.

Or to put it the other way round, a society with liberal legal and social values depends on a population with both internalized social and ethical values and self-disapline.

If we take "secular" to mean a society where there are no external learned framework of ethical and social values, but people are meant to individualistically pursue these things in whatever way they see fit, I am not sure it is actually compatible with a liberal democracy. It will either become authoritarian or destroy itself.

If there isn't any St Paul who is telling people that they need to take control of their thoughts, there will be some arm of the state doing it for them. Just like the Twitter thread where Peter Boghossian asks people to rationally explain their objection to the teacher - it's not easy to do if you have no underlying idea that there are sexual ethics.

Note that they say it would be illegal to criticise. Not even to stop the teacher from doing this, but to comment on it at all.

The only good thing about this is that all other countries who are now beginning to see some issues, will be looking at this and thinking, right, back pedal time now.

it's a dreadful glimpse into consequences that no one bloody wants. Including Canada, I should imagine.

It’s an interesting point which led me to consider the opposite - a non liberal secular society. The outcome of that can be even harsher as we have seen.

I agree with Xenia that you have to go by actions not thoughts but it’s a very interesting topic that I’ve only just thought about

As we cannot regulate thoughts I don't see why the law should or can prohibit them. I know this is off the point of the thread of course as has this man simply had his thoughts but wore his smart jacket and trousers to work there would be no issue.

I do accept that plenty of the religions have always tried to render certain thoughts as sins - coveting your neighbour's wife or ox or St Paul's adultery in the heart (i.e. thought).

I suppose as we cannot control thoughts (so far anyway) if they are never expressed nor acted on that is probably the best position and I regard that as better than St Paul's take on it.

Think what you like but actions, words, clothes etc matter. Of course if soeone is thinking about something else too much they cannot do their job (eg thinking about their baby with the child minder or what they will do in bed with their husband tonight) that thought becomes action - ie. not doing job and then we can take action against it.

They're absolutely petrified, aren't they? Their stupid fucking laws have lead them to this.

They have been hoodwinked into believing that such a thing as gender identity is something tangible.

That on one hand can incorporate a 12-year-old girl who desperately doesn't want to enter womanhood to be objectified by men, whilst simultaneously being a middle-aged man with giant comedy breasts fetishising and appropriating the very womanhood the preteen is trying to avoid.

It's one thing being so fucking stupid, it's quite another when it must be as clear to them as day what's happening now, and they're too fucking cowardly to say so.

History will judge this entire period in time incredibly harshly (and rightly so). This will be a scandal akin to several other high profile cases where the desire to be so woke it was painful, meant that children were put in harms way when it was blindingly obvious what was going on. Unfortunately I can’t name the scandals I’m referring to as MN has in the past deleted any reference to mentioning them in the same breath as what we’re dealing with now. Make of that what you will.

'institutionalised child abuse' says Tucker Carlson.

www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-oakville-trafalgar-high-school-protecting-child-abuser-institutionalized-child-abuse

Woah.

'A Canadian high school has said it would be illegal to criticize and stop a trans teacher from wearing huge prosthetic breasts in class.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11235121/amp/Canadian-high-school-says-ILLEGAL-criticize-trans-teacher-huge-prosthetic-breasts.html

People's private thoughts matter greatly. I have no doubt we have all encountered someone with a look on their face that unsettles us, creeps us out or just plain terrifies us. Thoughts impact on behaviour and body language and other people do pick up on that.

It's interesting to read the Peter Boghossian twitter thread.

The most common argument id "it's a fetish", the problem is that basically we have given up all the basic definitions and knowledge that things like that exist. So what counts as a fetish, what counts as an identity, what makes an identity authentic, what makes a fetish dangerous for kids, and so on.

If you have no ethical starting place for these ideas, it's almost impossible to make any kind of moral argument about sexual behaviour beyond things like rape where there is physical force.

And the effect of the sexual revolution is that supposedly we can't take these things for granted. we need to prove them empirically in some way.

It shows a real weakness in this kind of skeptic approach to ethics, and I think goes beyond sexual issues really. But it's very obvious in that area.