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

fuck sake, if I ever saw an example of pushing the "women are objects for mens sexual pleasure......." This is progressive, is it?

Excellent piece by Stock.

I won't give the creature involved any air time. They'll only get off on it.

This is one of the difficulties with secular liberalism. Things like people's thoughts do, in fact, matter. Certain thinking patterns relate to behaviours that are not socially or for that matter personally positive. But also liberalism seems to end up in this place where people think anything that is not proscribed legally is therefore ok, healthy, without consequences, etc.

There's no real framework for people to develop an internal sense of things like bad thought patterns or direction to avoid developing such patterns. You end up with a society of people with little self-control and behaviour to match. ANd ultimatly the need for more and more overt regulation.

But also liberalism seems to end up in this place where people think anything that is not proscribed legally is therefore ok, healthy, without consequences, etc.

And Mr Garrison lectured them in the Death Camp of Tolerance South Park episode I cited above, after numerous attempts to outrage the crowd during his award acceptance speech:

Audience: (Applause) Courageous! So courageous!

Mr Garrison: Goddammit, don't you people get it? I'm trying to get fired here!

Voice in Audience: Oh, that's courageous.

Mr Garrison: Look, this kind of behaviour should not be acceptable from a teacher!

Mr Slave: Yeah, Jesus Christ!

Audience member (like a zombie): But the Museum tells us to be tolerant.

Others: Yes, the Museum. The Museum tells us.

Mr Garrison: Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn't mean you have to approve of it. If you had to like it, it would be called the Museum of Acceptance. "Tolerate" means you're just putting up with it. You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off, Jesus tap-dancing Christ!

Randy Marsh: He's right, our boys didn't hate homosexuals, they just hated the way this asshole was acting.

Gerald Broflovski: We've got to get our boys back!

Mr Garrison: (Sigh) So now can I PLEASE get fired and get my 25 million dollars?

The parents go to pick up the kids from the re-education Tolerance Camp:

Stan Marsh: We're sorry, boys, why didn't you tell us your teachers were acting so over-the-top?

This push into public indecency as acceptable behavior ( pissing over themselves and pavements, in public, as 'art', this comedy-tits teacher, kids tipping money to drag queens) is likely to precipitate a public backlash against the LGBs who have nothing to do with this stuff, as Stock says.

This, as well as free speech implications of genderism, is my biggest concern, and why I think LGBA are essential. I do not want my butch lesbian daughter associated with the above in people's mind. Being lesbian is not a paraphilia.

'In which the writer missed the point by a margin wide enough to fit the Death Star through it.'

Covers the whole damn ideology does it not?

👏👏👏👏👏

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.

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.

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

'institutionalised child abuse' says Tucker Carlson.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Hate speech.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

My children would never step foot in that building again

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.