Biggus Titus of Oxford University

I can remember reading about this toaster example. It explains a lot:

Before the internet, men had all sorts of paraphilias just as they do now. However, the internet has changed things considerably.

Previously, if a man had a fetish (the example given was that he wants to fuck a toaster), he would push the thought out of his mind as he knew this wasn't a good idea and it was shameful to him. If the thoughts continued, he would get therapy.

Now, he joins a subReddit for fellow toaster lovers, and they all have a lovely hugbox where they normalise this fetish amongst themselves. It becomes something that is part of their 'identity', plus you mustn't be kink-shamed. So anyone who points out that this fetish isn't a good idea or something that should be alluded to in public is a nasty, horrid, Nazi bigot.

He's an abuser. He is seeking the response of others to his deliberately outrageous, overtly sexualised decision to wear a rubber bra-form. It's quite possible he has some kind or kinds of personality disorder.

PDs may respond to therapy, but the absolute worst thing that could be done for them is to encourage them, support the behaviour, and normalise it. FWIW people with PDs can also be charming, and there is also the 'vulnerable narcissist'.

However. People don't, on the whole, react well to abusers. Note how such men are treated in prison.

I just cannot believe that there are still women who cannot see the safeguarding issues here.

That it could be a fetish and therefore should never be allowed is one aspect of safeguarding. Normalising the sexualised dress which should be contravening the professional dress standards aspect is another issue.

And yet, there are still women out there who are defending this man's choices.

The worst thing for the cause about this Biggus Titus is that he has exposed the fetish and the exhibitionism within the cause, and that makes everyone uncomfortable.

Therefore, TRA ignore it, and allies pretend that he's an outlier or is 'unwell' and not like the lovely men who do the same but different. They criticise women for noticing and speaking out, as if it wasn't his intention to be the centre of attention.

He has at least two male friends over on X vigorously defending him. Both of whom appear to be frothing woman-haters of the ilk who enjoy standing in crowds of men screaming abuse at women. One, a would-be Green party councillor, once boasted of his pleasure at getting to stand with a bunch of other men yelling outside a Women's Place meeting calling the women inside wankers.

Apparently any woman who objects to Matt and his fake tits (sorry, his "just existing" having a "different gender expression" and "for the crime of having big tits") are "in a far right swamp" naturally and "bigoted haters" of this man who is apparently lovely and respected by every single student and colleague at Oxford (because of course, there is no way at all that any students might be put off complaining by the unhinged displays of woman-hating demonstrated by his fellow male tutors and friends).

I think the pendulum swinging too far back the other way may well happen.

There are several separate though overlapping issues, safeguarding female (and male) students and staff (e.g. preventing them from the sexual harassment of being used in a fetish or being exposed to overly sexualised porn-like attire), appropriate professional behaviour in the workplace, and compelled ideological belief and speech (which creates a chilling effect and undermines a safeguarding culture of people feeling free to report sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour).

It's really not rocket science. A no fake sexual organs in the workplace policy one would hope would be fairly non-controversial. But they also need to not horrendously bully and conduct a witch hunt against scientists with sex realist views (aka following the evidence) as Dr North has been.

Having said all this, I think there were a lot of men at Oxford who really weren't keen on women having an equal right to education, like the Taliban, so I'm not going to rule out that this is the general world view of those in positions of power. Who cares if young female students are put off studying Biochemistry or Biology? I know, I know, some of those in power are women, but we have the handmaids tale and Aunt Lydia (and Aunts in general), and the Isla Bumbas of this world, to show us some women are very, very happy to throw other women under the bus and subject them to harm purely so that they can hang onto a bit of power.

This is the irony of queer theory. The words say inclusive the action is to exclude women and girls in particular (and some others).

I really don't like that there's some pretty nasty, de-humanising stuff out there - stuff which isn't so much analysing or critiquing the behaviour and its impact as aggressively targetting him with explicit abuse. I do know this can be something of a fine line (and again, at risk of being called out on this, still hope he's OK in himself). I think it's another irony of trans ideology that, in labelling women who are expressing concerns about inappropriately sexualised behaviour in public, with reference to safeguarding conventions, bigotted... you open the door to genuine bigotry by dissolving the previously rather clearer line between the two, (< shout out for the Oxford comma!) and by removing the language we used to have to condemn the latter. And in silencing any concerns at all - whether overtly, by dismissing complaints, or more subtly through the trans-ideology-chilling effect - Oxford has itself contributed to a retaliatory fury that's such that (I hope) at least some of those now using unambiguously abusive language online may at least have found doing so anathema in a different cultural context.

It feels like we're heading towards the amplitude of some kind of pendulum swing seeking to redress the imbalances caused by trans ideology. It never needed to get to this point! And the sooner we get to some kind of negotiated, sensible equilibrium again, the better. So, over to you now, Oxford, with all your influence - and others like you. How can you fulfil your duty of care to employees and respect women discomfitted by this kind of behaviour? Had you already considered how to balance these rights and come down on one side? Or did it not occur to you that any balancing was needed in the first place? (I'm honestly not sure which I'd find more disturbing).

What a tangled web etc....

Hm. How d'you like that reputational damage, Oxford? If the thought that young women are being harmed and harassed won't shift the dial, perhaps a bit of brand devaluing will.

This one man has toppled all the respect I formerly had for the institution.

Quite an achievement.

He's getting a lot of publicity. Those plastic boobs are popping up everywhere now.

Don’t be so silly

Their policies, procedures, culture, and I expect leadership are demonstrating a vast, gaping hole in their ability to safeguard students, to maintain a safe work and study environment, to ensure women and girls are protected from harassment and a man intimidating and threatening them.

Absolutely this.
I think there’s an evens chance St Hilda’s is going to find itself at the wrong end of a lawsuit over this and a more than evens chance the college will lose.

the quality of people's academic scholarship.... but that's how we do it. Teaching and research come first.

Yet students are required to wear expensive sub-fusc at multiple times of their university career, and if they refuse to adhere to this dress code they cannot matriculate, take exams, or graduate. No matter how clever or industrious they might be.

Either it matters at Oxford that people dress appropriately or it doesn't, which is it?

If people were complaining that he 'just' had long hair, was wearing lipstick or a dress, you might have a point. The argument that dressing as a female is self-affirming if you are transitioning is a recognised one, regardless of whether you agree with it. But what innocent reason would anyone, male or female, have to wear excessively gigantic fake breasts? What is he achieving by dressing like that, that he wouldn't in just a normal padded bra?

To paraphrase a wise woman, some people are so open minded that their brains have fallen out.

It's also the case that there will always be people who test and ignore and crash through social boundaries and appropriate behaviour.

The university is absolutely at fault here. Outrageously, unforgivably so.

Their policies, procedures, culture, and I expect leadership are demonstrating a vast, gaping hole in their ability to safeguard students, to maintain a safe work and study environment, to ensure women and girls are protected from harassment and a man intimidating and threatening them. They are enabling abuse, inviting ridicule, and yes, exposing both their students and staff to harm, and also the man involved.

It's the institutions that need to be held to account.

Male abuse of power comes as no surprise.

If you create loopholes, predators will use them.

Totally agree. And we’ve a fairly clear consensus that they’ve been negligent in their responsibility to their students. Nothing wrong with making the point that their negligence may extend in another direction, too, to reinforce it. I hold them as responsible as him, if not more. If he IS vulnerable, that turns eyes even more persuasively onto their conduct. And from a less strategic perspective… employers do have a duty of care.

Also, it’s the humanity of the GC perspective in contrast to the fairly unstinting and explicit TRA abuse that first drew me in. Isn’t there some quote about best getting the measure of people by how they treat their enemies (obviously not a word that’s straightforwardly applicable here!) kinda thing? Certainly, fence-sitters who’ve been taught we’re all vicious termagants (been wanting to use that for SO long since learning it) may be more prepared to listen seeing this acknowledged? Different voices and approaches appeal to different people.

But lastly, frankly, because he may be. As Arabella says, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, and I do think it’s important for this to be recognised. The kind of over-simplification (trans good! GC baaaad!) the ideology favours is what’s got us into this mess, and they love exploiting it.

Also, I do try to remember to choose my words while holding in mind a person sitting behind a screen after living through some kind of worst-case-scenario day. I’ve found this thread really hard to navigate for that reason. And I do know that some of my concern there will be female socialisation. But I think some is just me. I’ve always tended to feel pretty empathetic towards most people (toys… insects… vegetables, even, if we go back far enough in my childhood!) Too much, it’s tiring tbh. I mean, I can’t kill a bug and cry over roadkill. FWR’s helping me with this in ways… but partly because of that that I do also keep pulling back and questioning myself and seeking to redress any overstep in a direction I may on reflection regret. I’m finding my way.

And with regard to that…

Yeah, “kindness” also is what got us here, I know, and they exploit that too, I also know… So - again with the strength in different voices and perspectives argument, I guess.

Yes, he might be entirely not vulnerable at all but very calculating. This is a good point. Who knows really. It doesn't matter, it's inappropriate.

The point is the University has failed in their duty of care. The University has failed at safeguarding, failed at professionalism, failed at equality, failed not to discriminate, and potentially also failed to help a vulnerable employee. Fail fail and big fat double F fail.

And it's supposed to be full of intelligent people - laughable! Emperor's new clothes in action!

I understand this, but I don't know why it's so important in the context of this thread to keep saying that this man might be vulnerable (and of course, he might not).

If he is vulnerable, his employers aren't really helping him, are they? They should have put a stop to this the first time he turned up for work looking like this, and helped him to get appropriate help.

Good point, and this is also why the University is the primarily responsible party. Professional dress and professional boundaries are there for everyone. Not imposing appropriate professional boundaries in this situation is not fair to anyone including young female undergraduates who may experience this as sexual harassment and institutional coercive control (being silenced and unable to complain about this) but it's also not fair to the man parading around in comedy / porn style fake breasts.

Ultimately as he himself has pointed out no-one wants to engage with him. That means he can't do his job. It's not rocket science to figure out why no-one is ever going to want to or even feel they can engage with him in that get up. Pretending that this is not the consequence of his dress is not particularly kind to him especially if it's not a fetish. Maybe he really is sufficiently clueless about women and girls that he doesn't realise many of his female students will experience this as threatening.

The University is failing to protect anyone in this situation and then they're subjecting poor Dr North - who did nothing more than put up quotes that encourage critical thinking from authors such as Lewis, Orwell and Dawkins - to a campaign of bullying and direct threats.

Two tier doesn't cover it. It's toxic.

It does not matter that Beardy Rubberjugs at Oxford may be ‘vulnerable’!! Why are certain posters falling over themselves to say this?

I don't understand this either. Do people think he might be mentally ill, so we should 'be kind' to him?

If his employers know he's mentally ill, they should be protecting him by making it clear to him that his offensive woman costume isn't appropriate for work, and helping him to get mental health support.

Because it is of absolutely crucial importance that women and girls learn that a person can be vulnerable and also represent a risk, or damaging, or abusive.

It's not about being 'kind', its about learning what 'vulnerable' means. Which means they may need support. Murderers, rapists, and all sorts of other people may be 'vulnerable'. It does not mean 'harmless'. It does not mean all safeguarding must be abandoned. It does not mean that other people's rights have to be sacrificed because this person is or may be vulnerable.

WHY are we still trapping ourselves with this Be Kind stuff??? It does not matter that Beardy Rubberjugs at Oxford may be ‘vulnerable’!! Why are certain posters falling over themselves to say this?

His behaviour is appalling wherever it stems from. His employers should be making it very clear to him that he cannot turn up at work looking like that and that if he wants help then he should go and see his GP. Or whoever you see when you’ve got a fetish / paraphilia, I don’t know.

Just to add… I keep trying to remember that he may be vulnerable too. Thanks for others’ reminders. Early on I tried not to post more on that assumption. But I just find it so very, very upsetting that this is permitted even as our concern is silenced. I said elsewhere, I feel like it’s that vast gulf of inconsistency that drives threads like this. An attempt to redress an utterly undemocratic imbalance that the powers-that-be never should have permitted, which then leads directly to the ironic spotlighting of the very individuals they’d say they were seeking to protect in the first place. But also… educational professionals are taught to be very careful in curating an appropriate social media presence. Unfair in a way, but there’s a fairly clear consensus that modelling standards comes with the role. Which brings it back to exactly what concerns us.

I’m monologuing - sorry. Am off to the Aida thread to talk chocolate and get less carried away.

I hope the conjecture that this man is fed up that he can't express a mild sex-realist position without witch hunts and threats to his employment but he's allowed to parade around in porn-wear in front of female undergraduates is true and this is a protest. That would be the best outcome. Ridiculous that this is even a possibility in a University of all places though.

To add to the above, someone earlier posted a really eye-opening analysis of how this movement - and, if we do call it abusive behaviour, this facet of that - rely on ambiguity and uncertainty. Oh, and catching up, Theywontletme has, too.

Maybe you could say that in debating the applicability of “it’s about trans” to this instance, we’re demonstrating the success of that. Equally, I guess, you could say that in shouting a big angry No! to all that, Retire’s challenging it by trying to decouple (sorry, pretentious sounding!) the two.

I just don’t think they CAN be separated that easily any more, though… Colloquially, trans has become a useful shorthand for anyone not fully versed in the various Rainbow flags and subversion of sex roles and stereotypes (which, with a worrying lack of irony, many such guys argue is what they’re doing… I guess from a male-as-default perspective, they are, while that argument wholly disregards the female perspective). And Stonewall included cross dressing til very recently, and similar orgs I think still do. It feels like trans has become a bit not just transing sex, but transing all facets of our unavoidably sex-based reality. But anyway, as long as trans ideology captures our institutions and trans is defined by an individual’s subjective internal state, it’ll be destructive. The ideological capture is authoritarian enough, and as long that’s the case AND trans is about self-ID… it leads as inexorably to thought-policing as Winston’s journey did to 101.

The sad thing is, I’d argue that guys like this are undermine the most vulnerable within the trans community. So you get halls plastered with Progress flags, acceptance of inappropriate prosthetics in the name of protecting and uplifting a community even as it’s almost certainly… not doing.

You seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying. As Catiette has explained, when I said "it's about trans", I meant that the whole situation has come about because of people who self identify as trans being a sacred caste who can't be criticised. I really have no idea what you thought I meant.

I haven't been taken over by anything, I'm just explaining what I see as the reason why this man is being allowed to behave in a way which would not have been allowed only 10 or so years ago. The reason is trans.

But as well as telling me how wrong I am, you seem to be agreeing with me:

The authorities probably have no idea either way but are erring on the side of its trans therefore we must accept it.

Well, yes, that's exactly what I was saying. It's about trans.

Michael Foran is at Oxford. I hope he gets a chance to have a word with St Hilda's governing body about the law and how the hopefully inevitable court case might go for them.