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

Sorry MNHQ, but this is 100% a fetish.

No real woman would want boobs that big. I mean they are literally down to his knees.

A woman would find the biggest bra possible to hook them bosoms up to a decent level and then drown herself in clothes to cover the nipples.

Why are we entertaining a man doing this with children present?!

Yeah, to me, the transgression doesn't change, depending on the level of awareness of those it's aimed at.

In fact, as a previous poster has said, the unconsenting part is often part of the thrill. with boundaries being pushed ever further, in order to keep transgressing without consequences.

Obviously this teacher in Canada has gone the whole hog. But I think, anywhere else, it would be the end of that particular person's transgressing.

There must be a fine line to be trodden where you can transgress, and make people uncomfortable, without them actually managing to stop you because you've gone too far.

Silicone bollocks, probably 🙈

Bollocks, I hate to think what amazon are going to suggest for me now!

Shame they aren’t a bit cheaper, we could’ve had a set each, worn them to Stonewall/Mermaids training!

www.amazon.co.uk/Joyfitness-Breastplate-Transgender-Transvestites-Crossdresser/dp/B093GTXSVH

Are those bewbs hollow? They have to be lighter than real breasts that size would be. Do you think he uses them for storage? They must get sweaty underneath. I hope he cleans and dries them, they're going to stink and get mildewed otherwise.

Oh fgs really?

We're not allowed to suggest this individual might be be motivated by fetish? Seriously?

Mods, I get the external pressures, but this has reached ridiculous levels of silencing debate.

Take one look at that photo of Kayla and think about what we're all colluding in here. I can only imagine how history is going to judge this sorry episode.

It's something I struggle with, I listened to a podcast with the transwidows mumsnetter, who talked about this in a slightly different context. Most of the middle aged tw leave behind a damaged wife and children. Talking about a 'good' one is like talking about a 'good' wife beater, or something like that. There's another tw teacher, who's more socially acceptable and who has been a gc ally. But is their conduct really any more acceptable? Or just transgresses enough but not too much?

However, I don't want to be absolutist, i think there are many areas of human behaviour that transgress social mores but are accepted so long as they don't go too far, though you couldn't demonstrate where 'too far' is on a map. Even if I couldn't articulate a hole proof argument to delineate a boundary this Canadian teacher clearly is over it.

Exactly.

This teacher has just hung a sign round his neck saying I've got a fetish.

And although the primary problem is subjecting his pupils to it, the secondary and very interesting problem is that people are having to ask themselves why is it the shape and size of this female identity that's the issue, and not the female identity itself?

And yes, I could see, only too readily, as a previous poster wrote, that he's deliberately pushing the boundaries to the point of a pay out.

And, of course if the school comply, they are basically opening the flood gates to a never-ending stream of identical cases.

I wonder if they realise that? And that's why they're doubling down. Hoping that this one off will expire all by itself won't encourage a bunch of other men to do the same.

Yes, that's the question. And it's my opinion that appropriating women's body types is wrong for whatever reason. But I can also articulate the various reasons.

The problem for Canada is that they can't. Because they've created a reason to appropriate women's body types, that they find not just acceptable, but 'progressive'.

I think I get what he's saying. Breasts on men, whether caused by a medical condition, hormones, surgery or prosthetics, are unnatural regardless of their size. A man choosing to have breasts is, arguably, indulging in a fetish. So, should any size male 'breasts' be acceptable? Where do you draw the line and how do you articulate that? This gentleman clearly has issues but if his 'breasts' were more modest what reasons make that acceptable but not these?

What does he mean by that? Is it that he thinks people are too afraid to call it a paraphilia?

Is he talking about people who can accept gender ideology, but not gender ideology when it's expressed like that?

But a man with a fetish displaying small breasts is exactly the same fetish as a man doing it with large breasts.

The only difference with small breasts is that people can kid themselves that it's not a fetish. They can pretend that it's a form of self expression.

These comedy breasts force people to ask what the fucking kind of self expression is that then, mate?

But if you accept the legitimacy of a man 'self expressing as a woman ', then the logic would follow that big breasts are no different to small breasts.

This is why TRAs are able to tell people off for the body shaming. It's not the size of the breasts, it's the fact you have to accept that the person is self expressing their inner gender, and not displaying a fetish to unconsenting children.

I don't know if this has already been posted but the philosopher, Peter Boghossian, tweeted this (i cropped the picture, it just kept going):

Which leads to the inevitable question of why its okay for a male with a fetish to display that or involve children in that fetish in some circumstances, but not others. Is it okay to just involve children just a little bit in your fetish?

Or is there actually no limit to what a teacher can do provided they appear also to be doing their job?

However it is not approprirate for a school any more than a big busted female art teacher wearing a low cut top to entertain the teenage boys.

I think there's a lot more to the problem than that Xenia

If the fake breasts were small I don't think anyone would really mind and the teenagers would be sniggering a lot less than I presumably they are doing in private. They probably, most of them, find these lessons really funny if they are normal teenagers - highlight of their week. However it is not approprirate for a school any more than a big busted female art teacher wearing a low cut top to entertain the teenage boys.

Is it okay to just involve children just a little bit in your fetish?

Quite.

In a way it's helpful for people like Kayla to force the issue in this way. This kind of situation results in lots of peaking.

Good Lord! No way a woman would be allowed to dress in that way. She would be embarrassingly and awakwardly told she needed to ensure her clothes supported and covered her appropriately.
The only logical conclusion is this person is getting a sexual kick out of presenting in this way in front of kids. Serious safeguarding situation.

Which leads to the inevitable question of why its okay for a male with a fetish to display that or involve children in that fetish in some circumstances, but not others. Is it okay to just involve children just a little bit in your fetish?

What does their 'progressive' utopia look like?

I think in this case, it's something like freedom from the confines of the human bodies we were born with. The ability to invent/reinvent ourselves without recourse to reality.

There's an assumption among certain parts of the left that liberal progression is always a positive.

But if it's progression, we must be progressing towards something - a defined goal. What is their goal in this case? What does their 'progressive' utopia look like?

I was a scrawny self-conscious teenager, desperately worried that my A cup boobs would never get any bigger (they didn't). Having to look at that distorted parody of the female form would have made me feel even worse about my body.

Quite impressive how this ideology allows a predatory male to become oppressed and vulnerable, whilst the actually vulnerable teenagers have to sit in silence for fear of being labelled phobic.