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."

**
It’s the putting Men’s wants before Women’s comfort and safety that’s makes her a traitor to her own sex.

yep! Matt desire to wear huge plastic norms which probably gives him a hard on is put above the right of women to be taught by someone exhibiting their fetish at work

it's aunt Lydia behaviour

'I will only listen to you when you use your nice indoor voice'

Yes, heard it. For hundreds of bloody years women have heard it. Got the bloody t shirt on that one.

A women's rights forum IS going to tell you where to stick nonsense like that.

Person is asked basic Level 1 questions about how trans sits badly with women's rights.

Person ignores the questions and gives us a long spiel about how we're mean and she has, in fact, been on MN since it was in nappies.

Person gives us a long list of classic MN threads and phrases, but strangely omits the classic, 'Are you on glue?'

Sure. As you can see from my responses earlier on the thread I support the right of women to single sex spaces when needed for their safety, privacy and dignity and also when required for fairness - eg for things like sports. However I also think that freedom of speech and belief is essential for a pluralistic, democratic society (question 9 on the list).

Edited for typos but also because it's not my answers earlier on this thread that state my position on women's spaces, but on the sister thread about trans women in women's bathrooms (big, fat no).

Freedom of belief has to work both ways. Freedom to believe in gender. Freedom to believe that gender is bullshit. Freedom to believe that a man is a woman if he says so. Freedom to believe that he's a man end of.

It's all fine so long as both groups experience no barriers to daily life and access.

Which means men have to use mixed sex spaces or alternatives, and women who are happy to use mixed sex spaces can go in there and have a lovely time.
Those men just cannot use women who don't or can't share that belief, and those men also have to accept that the can't and won't is as genuine as their own inner feelings and wishes. And is based on actual 'valid' things rather than being something a woman is doing solely to piss them off.

I'm not into 'women may have single sex spaces sometimes if I decide they really do deserve and need it'. I'm just into equality of access for all, and not being a dick. It really at this point is not women wanting single sex spaces who have the gold medal for dickishness.

Well I didn’t say she couldn’t have that opinion. You were the one who mentioned it. I said she’s a traitor to her own sex for what she promotes.

And let's be honest; that's the position that would work: everyone believes what they want, has accessible facilities and leaves everyone else alone, end of problem.

Because that's when sex realists could stop worrying and get on with life. No more problems. Be trans, have a lovely life.

But this is pie, isn't it? The right of men to have access to all women's spaces, all women, and never have to face reality cannot co exist with women's equality, rights and needs, which will always include single sex spaces.

Which require the reality in society and law that sex exists, and is fixed.

This desire and lifestyle has to exist within limits, because other people have rights too. And turning rights and society groups into a caste system, particularly to enable some with issues around boundaries and morality and equality to use other non consenting humans for their own needs, tends to end badly. Slavery for example. Colonialism. The group doing the oppressing doesn't tend to be popular or to crack on oppressing in peace for very long.

There has to be the 'no'.

I disagree with trans-exclusionary feminism. I'm sorry you seem to find that so threatening. There are many different strands of feminism in the world.
So, @oxfordfeminist, in toilet design terms, presumably this means you want mixed sex toilets?

Which choice do you think the government should make?

1. Change all the Health and Safety legislation, Building Regs and parts of the Sexual Offences Act, so that single sex designs are now mixed sex designs too. Most single sex provision currently has gaps for health (ventilation, cleaning) and safety (supervision, prevention of misuse). Men will be able to peer under and over partitions and doors, making provision uncomfortable for women and girls. Men don’t like women hearing them wee and poo either. The consequence will be that businesses etc will seek to fund and refurb to full length cubicles. This design is dangerous to men, women and children at their most vulnerable. It obviously affects people with disabilities such as epilepsy, diabetes, people at risk of strokes, cardiac arrest, self harm, drug overdosing, fainting from female conditions like endometriosis, pregnancy and miscarriage more. Assaults on women and children will rise. No longer will people with ambulant disabilities have reasonable adjustments for safer provision in case they collapse suddenly.
2. Make all non-domestic provision mixed sex design. The regulated one is called Universal. This has the sink and handryer in the same room as the toilet. It is private and resistant to the passage of sound. It will cost the country billions, reduce the number of units, urinals would be obsolete. There will be more deaths inside the provision (bodies have been found days afterwards). Hidden cameras are a concern, as is misuse from drugs and sex (consensual or not).

So, in response to your words, I do ‘find that threatening’. We should, as a society, be safeguarding anyone at their most vulnerable. Toilets are a necessity for sanitation, not a validation preference. However people identify, they are more at threat in private, mixed sex designs. The people least affected, as shown in my research, are healthy adult men.

The Health and Safety Executive have told me that only single sex cubicles within a single sex environment can have door and partition gaps.

So which is your choice for the country 1.or 2.?

So Oxford Feminist left without answering a single question? Quelle surprise. The hand maidens never do. I’m picturing her leaving the FWR virtual room with head slightly tilted back, eyes slightly closed, sighing deeply with a hurt / pained expression of having been forced to associate for a time with mean women who do not understand that some men should be allowed into female spaces… because? Well, we’ll never know now, will we.

Mean women who will never understand that women don't matter.

Thank God for the mean women.

"Trans exclusionary feminism" 🙄

Look. Female bodies exist. Whether you call us "women" or not, those of us who have female bodies from birth still exist, and we are still half of humanity.

And whether you call the physical and social consequences of having a female body "women's" physical and social consequences or not, they still happen, and they still happen to the same people. Because when it comes to the consequences of being female, changing the labels changes nothing at all.

It's the historic oppression of those people, the ones with the female bodies like me, and how that still puts us at unfair risk and at unfair disadvantage today, that I care about. That's what I call feminism.

But if you tell me it's not feminism, because feminism is about "the womanly identity or some such guff"... so what? Does that change the people I care about and the reasons I care? Am I supposed to blindly follow a word rather than my conscience?

No. Whether you call us "women" or not, and whether you call our social and political fight for fairness "Feminism" or not, it's still real and it still matters.

Thank you. Very clearly put.

Lots and lots of words but no explanation about whether a white lecturer who feels "more comfortable" expressing his "authentic self" as Mr Yunioshi would be inclusively and diversely celebrated?

Women and feminists and Oxford academics don't all think alike.

Is there a women only society at Oxford that doesn't doesn't admit men? How would the creation of such a group be greeted by students and staff?

Kathleen Stock described establishment people who believe in trans ideology as 'really quite stupid'. And she's right. It is a stupid ideology with no logic to it. You can't defend Matt and his giant prosthetic breasts while making people apologise for going to a party in blackface. You can't argue that gender identity is so innate that people need hormones and surgery to correct the 'mistake' but also so fluid that Eddie Izzard can be in 'girl mode' one day and 'boy mode' another. It's all very, very stupid. But it's also very damaging. Especially to the young and to women. You don't seem to be able or willing to defend your point of view. Maybe because you can't.

"anti-trans" threads.

It's like bingo with you lot. Calling feminist threads 'anti trans' really speaks to the agenda. Perhaps there are some anti-women threads you may find to be comfortable on.

How would the creation of such a group be greeted by students and staff?

My guess is that it would involve a protest comprising performative sadness and giant rubber boobs.

"a protest comprising performative sadness and giant rubber boobs" ....

If women wore 'bald old man' wigs every time they had to meet a creepy boobster it might make more impact than fake genitals. Non-sexual (wouldn't want to risk giving them a thrill), and something that men are sometimes touchy about.

I'm annoyed OF was too gutless to address the very apposite questions about blackface and the 'flied lice', 'where's your shilelagh' brand of entitled middle class British men. Mocking lesser beings is their core brand, and if they can get a sexy kick out of it, so much the better.

But wearing bald old man wigs, even though non sexual and directly in response to the boobs and despite the power differential would be bullying.

Trolling women by wearing giant fake boobs apparently isn't bullying (at best, it's probably sexual harassment involving non consenting women in his fetish).

Make it make sense. Finest education in the world my arse. Wealthy foreign donors take note.

When you think about it this ‘anti-trans’ rhetoric is rolled out whenever anyone challenges the whole situation. I wouldn’t prefer media to start using phrases such as ‘pro biological reality’ or similar. It does show some stupidity from the TRAs as their view seems to be playground level of if you don’t go along with our rules you are big meanies,

To some extent the dumbing down of wider society in hand with the huge investments pushing the acceptance of male fetish into the mainstream has enabled so much.

Anyhow @oxfordfeminist same questions-would you defend blackface/womanface as much as you are defending a man wearing fake boobs?

The vast majority of men who now sport 'breasts' are wearing ones that are fake. Whether they are rubber, surgical, hormone induced, socks in a bra or some combination. With the exception of the very rare few with a medical condition they're all fake. Doesn't matter if they're small, giant or somewhere on the spectrum in between. I think this feeds into why this weirdo's behaviour is sanctioned rather than sanctioned (I do love contranyms). How would they write a rule that allows some men to have boobs but not others? A doctor's note could deal with the medical condition, but the rest? By cup size?

It might force one of those debates they are so keen to close down.

Sorry in my last post i meant I would prefer media to start using pro reality as opposed to anti trans

The degradation of language is exasperating; 'anti trans' is such a meaningless phrase. No one is anti trans fatty acids or transatlantic communication, even within the gender topic no one excludes consideration of transmen from their feminism (for many of the appalling harm being done to young girls was our entry ticket).

We are anti sexual harassment and bullying and flat out lying from transwomen.