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

[grannyjacob]

How can this be allowed?

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1570750665680621568?s=21&t=lHOFZ9inVPAhUFVaCRJBXg

I've asked people before to explain what 'progressive' means. In my experience it means 'new'.

It feels like the progressive thing to do.

I believe "feels" is the operative word. As opposed to say, thinking.

I agree this is the problem.

There's an assumption among certain parts of the left that liberal progression is always a positive. That's not always the case, we can (and have) gone too far.

An example of going to far is what happened in Germany in the 80s. I was so shocked when I first read about this, yet I can see how cheerleading 'progressive' values without thinking can lead to the below.

www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

Absolutely true. If they were anything like a woman's breasts, there would have been no story.

The idiocy of the school board putting out a statement saying that the wrong person has been identified in the press rather than dealing with the paraphilia is just jaw dropping too.

Haven’t RTFT but I can’t help but wonder what would happen to a big silicone cosplay breastplate if it were to get stuck in a band saw?

(not a threat, MNHQ, purely a Health and Safety in the Workplace concern)

Yes - classic case of deflecting from the real, serious issue at play.

I did think it looked very dangerous!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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):

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.

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?

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?

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'.

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.

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.

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.