Just two weeks ago I wrote about the teacher in Canada who wears z-cup fake boobs to school. It turns out, though, that he doesn't wear his bazongas all the time, and because of this his school district has put him on paid leave:
Canada’s fake Z-cup boobs-wearing trans teacher has been put on leave for not wearing his fake boobs enough. This is a real news story. It also might be the most 21st Century scam of … well, of the 21st Century. Bear with me here as we plunge deep into the details of this stand-out story.
Shop teacher Kerry “Kayla” Lemieux, according to the Daily Mail, has “finally been suspended from her Canadian school after pictures showed her in men’s clothing, proving she does not wear the provocative attire all the time.” He gained infamy last year for wearing tight clothes and comically — some would say offensively — large fake breasts, complete with protruding nipples.
There's a pic at the link.
Here's how I see it. You can't on one breast hand say it's ok for a guy to wear prosthetics and dress as a woman, and yet on the other hand say he doesn't do it enough so that it's no longer ok. Is there a requirement for how many hours a day a man has to dress as a woman before he's considered a woman? And who are you to say that 10 hours isn't enough but 12 hours is?
This is the problem lefties always get into. Their silliness requires twisting logic into pretzels when someone goes "too far", however that's defined. Can't a non-binary person be a guy today and a gal tomorrow? And if so, why can't someone be one "gender" at work and another at home?
This weird dude who wants to wear watermelon-boobs isn't the problem, he's just a symptom. The problem is all the soft-headed lefties who will say this relatively abnormal behavior is and should be perfectly fine--until they determine that it isn't. And then they can't give a rational explanation for why their new line is the one that must not be crossed, rather than the line that the vast majority of the people on the planet all pretty much agreed with just a few years ago, before people started confusing their personalities with their gender.
When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the song that was supposedly played was The World Turned Upside Down. It's time again to break out the sheet music for that tune.
11 comments:
"This is the problem lefties always get into. Their silliness requires twisting logic into pretzels when someone goes "too far", however that's defined."
Is that a problem for Leftists?
Their logic is inconsistent and contradictory, but they never pay a price for that. Conservatives always think that some crazy idea the Leftists are pushing, will blow up in their face or be used against them. It never happens. Since Leftists are after power, they just change the rules.
MLK dreamed of a time when people wouldn't be judged by the color their skin, but by the content of their character. A person insisting on that policy now would be branded a racist, tagged by the FBI, and have social media accounts suspended.
Title IX was supposed to give women the same opportunities to participate in sports, as men have. Just as that was settling in, it's decided that men can participate as women without doing much to gain that status.
Remember "my body, my choice"? Didn't hear that very much after the Covid vaccines came out.
Leftists don't have principles that can be articulated. Nobody even has to go "too far". The policies contradict each other.
I know they don't ever have to *pay* for their inconsistency, but sometimes one of them will try to use logic to justify a belief--from thence come pretzels.
Counter point: who then, should say what constitutes "abnormal behavior?"
I understand that lines can be difficult to draw, but as Joey said on Friends when Chandler wanted to date Joey's girlfriend, "You're so far beyond the line, the line is a dot to you!"
If this were normal behavior, this dude wouldn't be in the news.
Spooky scary trans person here.
I think most reasonable people agree that those particular breast forms are inappropriate for school. And to preempt the snark, yes, I do consider most people on the left to be reasonable, just as I consider most people on the right to be (even if we come to different conclusions).
Imagine this were a cis woman who had a double mastectomy. I don’t think most people would give her a hard time if she chose to wear breast forms at school; it helps her body feel right to her, it makes her clothes fit the way she wants them to, and it makes her feel like herself. However, if she wore these particular forms, which are distractingly (and since this is a shop teacher, possibly dangerously) large, I think most people would agree it’s inappropriate. It goes past the point of helping her feel comfortable in her own body and begins to threaten the mission of schools, which is to provide a good learning environment for its students. You could say the same thing about a bald person choosing to wear a wig. A fairly normal looking wig wouldn’t get a second look. Going full footlong Mohawk is probably not a good call.
Taking the size out of the equation for a moment, the teacher not wearing breast forms all the time is no different than the woman with the mastectomy not wearing hers all the time. Is it suddenly inappropriate for her to wear them at school if she doesn’t also wear them when she goes to the store on the weekend? No. They’re uncomfortable and sometimes you just don’t want to deal with it. I’m sure you’ve gone to the store in your PJs to pick up something when you haven’t shaved in a couple days. Everyone does it.
And I find it odd that you claim that the left are the people deciding whether not wearing the forms all the time makes them inappropriate. You are the one (in your linked post) who used this as evidence that the teacher much must be faking it for attention (calling her a troll). The administration was likely preemptively putting her on leave anticipating reactions like yours (or something else happened behind the scenes we’re not privy to), not because rabid leftists have demanded the teacher resign due to “not being trans enough”.
The reason you see this as unreasonable behavior from the left is pretty simple: you don’t think trans people count as “normal”, so you don’t apply the same standards to them. A trans woman wearing breast forms is not the same to you as a cis woman wearing them, *because* the person is trans; that makes it inherently deviant and inappropriate. So while it’s not transphobic to say those breast forms are inappropriate (they are), it is transphobic to apply a different standard to a trans woman and a cis woman in the same situation.
Whether intentionally or not, you *entirely* misinterpreted what I wrote. I recommend you read it again, this time for understanding and not just to prepare to attack.
I interpreted what you said as essentially a slippery slope argument: “if you let someone raised as a man wear a dress, who knows what’s next? Once you say that’s okay, where can you draw the line? Anyone who says a person can dress how they like but also thinks that this particular teacher acted inappropriately is a hypocrite trying to justify things post-hoc. If you allow the dresses you have to allow this, by your own internal logic.”
My response was that this is not the inevitable conclusion of allowing trans people to present how they want, and in fact most people apply the same standards here: dress how you want, as long as it’s appropriate under the circumstances. Our disagreement seems to be that you don’t think being trans in public is appropriate, so being trans and wearing distracting and inappropriate clothes to school are morally equivalent.
And before you backtrack and say you never actually said being trans is bad etc: just look at the way you talk about us. Intentionally and repeatedly misgendering people, calling others soft-brained for thinking trans people are worthy of respect, reducing trans women to “men in dresses playing make believe” and portraying them as perverts trying to sneak into bathrooms to prey on vulnerable “real” women. It’s not difficult to connect the dots.
When I asked if the teacher was a troll, I was clear that perhaps he was trolling his school district.
This entire post is about lefties who say what he does is ok...until it isn't, and he's put on leave. Again, if I'm bashing his school district administration, not him. Your very first paragraph in your comment above shows a complete and total misunderstanding of what I'm writing about. Whether that misunderstanding is because you *want* to believe I wrote what you think I did, or because my meaning wasn't clear to the average reader, I don't yet know.
As for the "perverts" you bring up, I'm not suggesting that trans people are perverts, but it's not a stretch to think (because it's happened) that perverts would dress as or claim to be trans just to have free access to a different bathroom. Or a different prison.
You desperately want to attack me for things I haven't said or haven't implied. I'm not OK with that.
I think I see the distinction you’re making - your objection is that the district initially defended the teacher, but subsequently put her on leave after the not-at-school photos came out. Perhaps I misunderstood. I think it was the flippant description of the whole idea of her wearing women’s clothing being ridiculous that made it unclear to me - equating wearing women’s clothes and any sort of breast forms with wearing distracting and inappropriate breast forms. I still suspect putting her on leave was a CYA move to protect the district from criticism from people who would hold that up as evidence she’s faking it, rather than the district being queer allies who suddenly decided a line was crossed, but that is just my speculation as a queer person. Anyways.
You say you don’t think trans people are perverts, and yet it’s pretty clear from what you just said that you think they should be eyed with suspicion. You think that men would use protections meant for trans women in order to invade women-only spaces and harm the people there. Yet you also deny that trans women even exist, calling them men who “confus[ed] their personalities for their gender”. Therefore, trans women are men trying to invade women-only spaces, at best because they are hopelessly confused and at worst because they mean to cause harm.
The vast majority of trans people are normal people like you just trying to live their lives. A trans person is no more likely to be a predator than anyone else merely because they are trans. By your logic, we shouldn’t allow priests anywhere children might be - after all, there’s many more documented cases of priests using their circumstances to gain access to their victims than there are trans people doing the same. I think we both agree that’s overly broad and discriminatory.
Trans people have the same right to use a locker room (or whatever gender-segregated space) as anyone else. They aren’t trying to cause trouble or purposely stick out or get in your face. They just want to mind their own business, use the space for what it’s meant for and move on. Same as anyone else.
How safe do you think someone who looks like Hunter Schafer would feel changing in a locker room full of cis men? What about *her* safety?
Would you want someone who looks like Zeke Smith to walk into a women’s locker room and start getting undressed?
“They can go somewhere else” is not an acceptable answer. Separate but equal is not equal.
I urge you to consider the humans involved, even if you don’t understand them. A little empathy goes a long way. I am not attacking you as a person, I do not think you are fundamentally or irredeemably bad. But you do have a blind spot on this issue, and I think it would be good for you to spend some time learning about what life is like for the people you so casually judge. You may find some common ground with them after all.
I don't have a blind spot. I disagree with some of what you said.
Does that change your view about my redeemability?
I did not say you were bad or in need of redemption, and took pains to make it clear I was not attacking you personally or making this about your moral worthiness.
I suppose I’m curious what you disagree with, but it doesn’t seem like you’re interested in engaging. Saying “I disagree” or “you misunderstood” doesn’t clarify your position or address anything I said. But that’s fine, this is your blog and I picked this fight. You are not obligated to respond, or even approve my comments.
I don’t think that having a blind spot is a flaw or a criticism. Everyone has blind spots, because everyone has different life experiences. For example, I don’t understand what it’s like to be a parent, because I don’t have kids. I have a blind spot there. But, it’s important to acknowledge that blind spot and give people who have lived that experience the benefit of the doubt on issues that affect them. Listening to them and taking their perspectives into account helps everyone.
Post a Comment