Biggus Titus of Oxford University

[Forecastsayssnowbutthereisnosnow]

Sadly, not a Monty Python sketch.

Matt Rattley, a large bearded bloke who wears giant fake breasts, appears to be happily working at Oxford Uni.

I was really hoping this wasn't true but there is even a youtube video with him talking while wearing the giant breasts and red lipstick, applied to a degree any circus clown would be accused of overdoing it. The video includes a slide stating he works as a lecturer and tutor in the Biochemistry Dept at Oxford. He's also on LinkedIn.

I mean, how obvious can it be that this is a sexual fetish which he is involving unconsenting students and staff in???

Dr P on X has been (correctly) very robust on this case:

""This is Matt Rattley saying, "I can do whatever I please and nobody can stop me".

This is highly antisocial, abnormal, boundary-violating, paraphilic behaviour.

And we should not be afraid to say so."

Sorry, was missing nuance.

I wonder what would make “oxfordfeminist” uncomfortable in a tutorial room. Probably a robust discussion on how Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer and Andrea Dworkin wrote some texts that will stand the test of time, whereas Judith Butler will go down in history as a purveyor of word salad.

Agreed. It's why transactivists are so desperate to police the thinking on Mumsnet. Once women are able to speak freely without the shackles of trans speak, once women are allowed to explore the tactics used, identify and overcome the fear of the bigot / pearl clutcher / anti trans labels and understand how grim fetishists are taking over the public space to promote their self interested desires, that's when the truth emerges. And our instinct to keep the young safe kicks in.

I think it's very clear that what would make OF (ha, unfortunate initials!) uncomfortable in a tutorial room is being asked the very basic question "why is a male person wearing fake tits ok when a British person wearing a Sombrero or a white person wearing blackface is not?"

I missed that! Yes, I’m keen to see that question answered too. Hopefully OF will be back soon to put us out of our misery🤞🏻

@MrsOvertonsWindow great post. We see the behaviours for what they are. Manipulation. Accordingly the TRAs know we know so have sanitised and reframed the language they use to make themselves seem kind and civilised whilst we as sex realists are portrayed as hysterical harridans.

I am often blown away by the men in frocks and their dress sense. It is either massively inappropriate such as fishnets etc or the other way and very Mumsy but from a bygone era. Stephen the endometriosis guy dresses like a head teacher / Margaret Thatcher - all column dresses or block colour suits. Office wear type clothing from the 1980s/90s with sheer tights in nude colours - I haven’t dressed like that in years and neither have my peers.

Some men have a specific woman from their past in mind when they make these clothing choices. The woman that they wanted to be.

Want to be, or want to erase/ control/ dominate.

I believe many late-onset male transitioners are driven by a subconscious drive to unwrite/overwrite the existence of a specific woman they feel took/insulted their power. "Being" her as she "should" have been redresses the balance for their ego. What better way to show power over someone, to dismiss them utterly, than take their actual identity and make it yours?

They covet what they see every day, to paraphrase a famous film where the skinwalking villain was based on three real serial killers.

Yes, haven't you just.

or the other way and very Mumsy but from a bygone era

That has reminded me of James Oswald's Madame Rose. I read some of his books years ago, before I knew anything about 'trans' but did have knowledge of transvestite men. I'm not sure I can be bothered reading any of his more recent work to see how he's making his land lie now.

This is the question that I come back to repeatedly.

I've never had a reasonable answer.

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3209&context=cklawreview
I read this article - it's called Drag = Blackface years ago, and the concluding sentence sums things up for me:
'Likewise, the drag queen is a symbol of everything women reject in men's thinking about gender, and the relish of drag performance - by performer and audience alike - is* *every woman's gall.'

yes quite good points from @KnottyAuty and @Catiette

So many people come on here and their stories just reek of being made up : convenient facts, personal history and connections appearing just like magic as the argument requires. It's like "OK, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or even "if you're going to come on here with social capital at 0.0, giving it the big I'm this and I've done that, don't expect immediate uncritical belief".

A few (but perhaps not many) folk seem to figure that out and try to play the reasonable game to build up some social capital before the nonsense begins. That lasts on average 3 days to a week before it's all YOU ARE TRANSPHOBIC BASTARDS GANGING UP ON ME HOW DARE YOU MAKE MY TRANS HAMSTER SUICIDIC, I QUIT but will continue to post for far too long before I eventually get bored of my own douchey persona, and silently flounce

I just had a a revision session with a finalist today who uses he/him pronouns but dresses as a woman.

I'm sure others have asked you to clarify, but "dresses as a woman"? Do you mean:

• man (small gamete producer)
• wears dresses and/or make up

???

I'm a woman (large gamete producer) who's wearing trousers & boots todaty, so now I'm confused - am I dressing as a man ...?

That is an interesting thought. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the transvestites I knew seemed mostly to wear what I would describe as "middle-class suburban-housewife-chic"; they may indeed have been attempting to look like their mothers or aunts dressed up for a day shopping "down town". Twin set and pearls territory, which no woman I knew in the circles we were all moving in would have dreamed of wearing for a weekend that wasn't a cosplay event of some sort.

And whereas almost every woman I knew wore flat, comfortable shoes for weekends spent mostly on our feet, these lads always but always wore stiletto heeled court shoes, and almost all complained bitterly about how difficult it was to find those in size nine or ten. You could instantly spot the women-not-women by looking at their feet, you didn't even need to clock their throats or hands in order to be sure about it.

On a slightly different though: how the hell can anyone be accused of "othering" anyone who has made such an enormous and conscious effort to be different from everyone else in the town, other? Matt Rattley is other by his own deliberate act; as far as I could ever make out, the transvestites of an earlier age wanted nothing more than to blend in, somehow, somewhere, and not be noticed and despised – as Matt Rattley is certainly despised, even though it is hardly possible for anyone else to other him.

It's not at all clear whether this person is a crossdressing man or a woman who wants people to pretend they think she's a man even though she looks like a woman (because she is one).

I suspect it being unclear doesn't matter to OF so long as OF is made to look woke and wonderful for teaching the person and not noticing the fact that they're not like most people. (Not sure what the point of the person's "rebellion" is, apart from the same urge that made previous generations of students go on protest marches about this and that when they often had difficulty explaining what they actually were about.)

Even though OF has of course noticed, and in fact is boasting online about this person proving how generally magnificent and unbiased OF is.

If it were him, he seems to be a bit too dim to be teaching at one of our most prestigious universities.

Yes to the childish language.

An activist poster actually came out with 'I see that makes you sad' to another poster the other day, which is not naturally how one adult talks to another with typical development and social experience. It felt more like scripting learned from someone in a therapeutic role and it's in the realms of the emotional processing skills you would use in the earlier years of a primary school, with children struggling with typical skill acquisition and regulation. Likewise the 'kind' and the black and white thinking, and the saying words without knowledge of semantic meaning such as 'inclusion' without realising this means everyone and is more complex than 'so I get what I want'.

This, alongside much of the omnicause activism now popular, is not the realm of the successful, the healthy and the happy. The marketing doesn't hide it.

The late Jan Morris had a very outdated 1950s type look that would have seemed faintly ridiculous on a real woman but was tolerated because men in dresses are accorded latitude that isn't accorded to women.

Mind you, there are some who just don't make any effort at all, eg:

https://x.com/dearaunty/status/2052315128821882923/photo/3

Hope this link works. Graham Linehan mentioned the fabulous Lisa Muggeridge today, specifically a video she made where she discussed her social work training.

This is a stand out:

"There was a lecture, I think it’s actually the core module, the actual social work theory lecture, where a very middle class woman …the lecturer had mentioned the word “normal”, and she thought she was being a smart arse, this one, and she said, “What’s normal anyway?” The lecturer fixed her with a look and said, “Your job from now on is to have a very, very, very clear grasp of what is normal and what is abnormal and what is within the range of normal, because you are going to be making decisions on that basis. And if you do not have that ability, you are on the wrong course"

It just struck me as relevant. It seems to be an ability that is very lacking in a lot of people these days.

https://open.substack.com/pub/grahamlinehan/p/the-video-that-radicalised-me?utmsource=share&utmmedium=android&r=7w5qn

Edit: here is a link to the video:

And no, I'm not suggesting that this man is a a paedophile!

FlirtsWithRhinos · Today 10:29

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read the initials as something different...

It's internet dialogue. It's a style of discourse that has developed around internet groups and forums where "Tl;dr" counts as a pithy putdown. No nuance, short dismissive statements, reframing logical arguments as driven by negative emotions rather than reason so they can be ignored.

It's being arrogant. It happens off line too.

There's plenty of nuance and respect and intelligence and kindness and humour in online discussion. Those of us trained to respect rigour and challenge dishonesty do so wherever we find ourselves.