French virtue signalling

Seen today whilst passing through Gare de Lyon;

Look closely; the chaps who are recharging their mobile phones are having to pedal for the electricity.

Bear in mind the following;

– France has the lowest priced electricity in Europe at €0.15 per kilowatt because they heavily rely on the very sensible method (if you don’t like carbon) of generating energy: nuclear, and

– It takes about 1 kilowatt to fully charge an iPhone, and

– A static exercise bike costs about €200, probably triple that once it’s been integrated into a seat, table and charge station, and there are three of them, and

– The maintenance costs are likely to be the equivalent of a couple of hours of labour a month plus parts, so perhaps €100.

Therefore (and if someone can check my calculations, I’d be grateful), over 12,000 phones would need to be charged a year for this station to make economic sense. So, an average of 33 a day, including Christmas.

Except… an efficient bike generator produces about 100 watts an hour, so there’s absolutely no way these three machines would get even close to a 10% ROI, even if they were fully-utilised around the clock.

Bill’s Opinion

Dear railway travellers of France; the Gare de Lyon station management think you’re a bunch of fat lazy bastards and are therefore happy to spend money in a completely inefficient way to make you change your ways.

Oh, and to the bloke wearing sunglasses indoors at 4pm on a January afternoon; you’re a twat.

That would be what we pay you for then, n’est pas?

The unfortunately named Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, has suggested that Britain would be less safe after a “no deal” Brexit because, well, there would be some more paperwork to complete to extradite suspects from overseas.

To be fair, that’s not quite what she said but it wasn’t far off;

Ms Dick told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the UK’s policing co-operation with the EU was based on a framework of “legal instruments” which would have to be replaced after its exit.

While she hoped the two sides would end up with “something very similar”, she accepted that if the UK left without a deal, this would be “very difficult to do short term”.

Newsflash for Ms. Dick; the referendum was in 2016, you’ve had 2 years to plan for a “no deal”. You are surely not suggesting that this planning has only just commenced, or worse, hasn’t yet started, are you?

Also, please could you explain how a delay to an extradition makes the British public less safe? Thinking this through, an extradition request generally requires a crime to have been committed already so, in the case of a violent crime, the victim is already lying in a hospital bed or worse. It matters less that the perpetrator is languishing a little longer on the Costa Del Sol before facing a trial.

Bill’s Opinion

Either mature plans are already underway for the “no deal” option and Ms. Dick is deliberately scaremongering for political purposes, or plans are not in place and she and her colleagues are guilty of extreme professional negligence.

In the meantime, perhaps she could divert resources from investigating hurty tweets and towards the current knife crime crisis.

What did the Romans ever do for us?

UOW academics, including visiting fellow Sarah Keenan who handed in her resignation, woke on Monday to news the university had signed a deal with the Ramsay Centre to establish the country’s first degree in Western Civilisation.

Under a deal signed on Friday and made public on Monday, The Ramsay Centre will pay for 10 academics to teach the three-year degree, and give 30 students a year more than $27,000 each towards their living expenses while they study.

The background to this is that part of the fortune of the late Paul Ramsay was bequeathed to setting up a course on “Western Civilisation”. It’s caused several universities more than a little heartache; on the one hand, funding for a degree course in 2019 is very welcome, particularly in the current funding climate. On the other hand, universities have gone down the rat hole of SJW lunacy and are hostage to utter nutters with the title, “Professor”, as we have seen previously.

As with all of these political minefields, the people shouting the loudest are usually the ones operating with a low resolution view of the underlying facts.

In all of the coverage of the conflicts between activist academics and the Ramsay Centre, not one column inch has been dedicated to explaining which part of the proposed curriculum they take most offence from.

To assist the readership of his organ, here is the proposed curriculum;

Shocking stuff, eh?

Personally, I’m outraged that Malthus, Marx, Engels, Rousseau and Foucault are given the oxygen of publicity on a course supposedly on the subject of “civilisation”. I assume that’s the position of the offended academics too?

Bill’s Opinion

The proposed curriculum looks like an extremely interesting and balanced course. The reading material doesn’t, Prima Facie, scream “white supremacy”, does it? In fact, it even includes the godawful 60s French nutters, which we’d all be better off forgetting, frankly.

As for those who object to the course, we only need look at what they do for a living;

Dr Keenan, who is based at the Birkbeck School of Law, resigned as a visiting fellow at the university’s Legal Intersections Research Centre  because she would not support an institution that leant its name to the Ramsay Centre.

This is the LIRC’s work;

And this is Dr. Keenan;

In fact, one need only look at that joyless face to know that anything she dislikes is probably going to be a lot of fun.

To hell with your intersectional law.

Hiding in plain sight

Oscar Wilde learned the hard way that sometimes it’s expedient to keep a low profile and not draw attention to behaviour that, when exposed to the judgement of the wider society, may not be as acceptable as you may have previously thought.

Sydney University have recently suspended a lecturer for presenting an image of the Israeli flag with a swastika transposed on it….. in a lecture, i.e. not at some private speaking engagement but as part of an official university course. A search of the Sydney University website drew a blank when looking for “Anti-Zionist Studies” or “Anti-Semitism 101” but it’s probably called something else more academicky.

That Professor Tim Anderson is an unreconstructed radical Communist is apparent from even the most cursory glance at his social media accounts, but his history of being wrong about absolutely everything predates the Internet; back in the 1970s, he was involved in a radical group responsible for a bomb attack that killed two innocent garbage collectors. He was imprisoned but had the conviction overturned on appeal.

Regardless of his innocence in the act of terrorism, this is a man who has no moral quandaries with the regimes of Venezuela, Syria and North Korea and has made many visits to these hellholes where he fawned over their dictators. In fact, his life work seems to be in orbit around a simple philosophy; western democracy is bad, authoritarian collectivism in whatever form is good.

That Sydney University ever employed him in the first place is hard to understand. It’s difficult to comprehend quite what academic value there is to be had for students to listen to lectures from someone who pines for a Socialist utopia where we finally, after all these false starts resulting in just a couple of hundred million murders, get the correct version of Socialism.

Should he be prevented from stating his opinions, however loopy they are? Of course not.

Should he be paid to do so by the generosity of the Australian taxpayer? Nah.

Since the suspension, 30 of his fellow academics have broken cover and signed an open letter in support of Anderson.

Amusingly, the letter doesn’t explicitly use the words “free speech“, one assumes because this is a term that has recently been associated with the non-left. I hesitate to use the term “right” as the definitions have shifted so massively in the last half decade or so resulting in classical liberals being called Nazis for defending the rights of people to say things with which they disagree.

Instead, we see the term “academic freedom” used as a proxy for “free speech“.

Ok, what’s their record on free speech then? After all, your arguments for free speech look somewhat insipid if they are limited only to speech with which you agree.

Here’s the open letter with the list of Comrade Anderson’s apologists helpfully listed at the bottom.

Let’s have a dip in to the cess pit of unreconstructed Marxism and radical left lunacy that makes up that list;

Fruitloop #1: Stuart Rosewarne. From his university bio; “Stuart Rosewarne’s research and teaching interests are in environmental and ecological economics, critical socialist ecology, international political economy, and the political economy of gender.

Critical Socialist ecology? You can be damn certain the one thing he’s not critical of in the slightest is Socialism.

Fruitloop #2: Rebecca Pearse. “Beck” wants us to decolonise the curriculum and some other word salad we can’t translate into English.

Fruitloop #3: Dr. Nick Riemer. Nick’s twitter account shows he’s drunk the climate change KoolAid, supports open borders and, of course is an activist in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) cause, an organisation with a correlation rate trending close to 1.0 of anti-Semitic members;

Fruitloop #4: Dr. Dave Brophy. Dave likes the usual causes of his colleagues but with a slight focus on criticising the Chinese government, which may indicate that all is not yet lost with regards to his ability to actually think for himself. Of course, he’s fully signed up to the BDS bollocks too though;

Fruitloop #5: Dr. Linda Connor. Linda is an anthropologist but seems totally obsessed far more interested in climate change than her field of research, judging by her Twitter account. Presumably she’s classed as an academic expert when people collect statistics proving that 97% of experts believe in catastrophic man-made climate change.

Fruitloop #6: Dr. Jake Lynch. Jake is just your common or garden BDS supporter, so much so in fact, that he had to (successfully) defend himself in court against charges of anti-Semitism.

Bill’s Opinion

Defenders of free speechacademic freedom” would be more credible if they could demonstrate any track record of standing in solidarity for people with opinions they completely reject. The simplest of internet searches on almost everyone on the list of academics supporting terrorist sympathiser and murderous dictators’ ally, Comrade Tim Anderson, proves they are all living in the same radical left wing echo chamber.

Here’s a clue to those beardy hippies in the Faculty of Arts and Social Science; ask your real scientist mates from the engineering department to sign up too.

Here’s another clue; why not channel Voltaire and defend the rights of people with whom you disagree to speak and we might take you a little more seriously. Perhaps start by inviting this tour onto campus;

What can we learn from this depressing episode of cultural Marxism?

Simple; if you have a family member or friend considering studying humanities at the University of Sydney, use every persuasive tool at your disposal to change their minds before they fall down the rabbithole of radical left brainwashing. The “education” they will receive will be useless for anything of tangible benefit to themselves or the world.

As Pandora learned though, there’s always hope;

Finally….. we found ONE!

Not a Fruitloop: Dr. Colin Wight. Colin must feel extremely lonely at the University of Sydney, as he is probably the only academic on the campus who understands nuance and accepts the possibility that very little in life is ever black or white;

Troll level; Jedi

We wrote about the Cloggy Kaas Kop who is taking the Dutch government to court in an attempt to change his age from 69 to 49.

At first blush this looked like a serious request and simply a logical extension of the “everything is a social construct” lunacy.

However, it’s increasingly likely this is an excellent exercise in trolling and is having the desired effect.

Hilary Brueck over at Business Insider, for example, is tying him/her/zherself in knots trying to explain why age isn’t a social construct but gender is.

In fact, no she isn’t, leaving this statement hanging awkwardly without any reasoning to explain why what Retelband is attempting is “problematic” (now there’s a great word to look out for when you suspect you’re being bullshitted).

Depressingly, there was no further “logical” explanation as to why age can’t be changed than what is written above. It would seem that simply saying the words, “problematic”, “offence” and “nonsense” constitutes an argument these days.

Here’s Shon Faye’s “takedown”, by the way;

Which seems to be saying, “it’s not the same because it’s not the same“. Again, not really an argument is it? Feelings trump facts.

Predictably, the Grauniad’s Komment Macht Frei gets in on the act with an article pointing out that our Dutch friend has a long and glorious history of trolling and mischief but never quite gets to the part we are, by now, desperate for someone to articulate. Namely, how is it that biological gender is a social construct but chronological age isn’t?

Bill’s Opinion

People such as Ellie Mae, Shon and Hillary might want to consider counting the assumptions required to be correct for each of these statements to also be true;

1. Gender is a social construct that can be altered by a change in societal attitudes of acceptance, application of hormones and surgery.

2. Age is a social construct that can be changed by societal attitudes, legal edict, and editing numbers on government databases.

3. Biological gender is determined by, erm, biology and gender dysphoria is an unfortunate mental illness that should be treated with sympathy rather than complicit fantasy.

4. Emile’s court case is what you get when people realise a large group of society has agreed to ignore a illogical and indefensible idea and are making significant practical real life changes based on the fallacy.

Loving your work, Emile.

I’ll take, “Things that didn’t happen” for $800, Clementine

Clementine Ford has been allowed out on day release again.

My friend’s son is banned from wearing a tutu in his ballet class.

A friend of mine moved to Queensland some time ago and enrolled her two children in a small, local ballet school. They both adore dancing, and her young son especially has embraced wearing tutus and other dance paraphernalia.

I have a friend who encourages her son to wear girl’s clothes. Much hilarity ensues, as I will now explain“.

Recently, the school began preparing for its end of year concert. What followed was a disturbing insight into how deeply people still hold on to their assumptions and phobias about binary gender expression and the challenges this presents.

The rest of the world has a problem. Not my friend or me, you understand, but the rest of the world“.

My friend’s son – we’ll call him “John” – was excited to join the other little dancers, wearing his tutu and dancing along with them. But apparently this didn’t accord with the teacher’s vision.

The teacher planned a dance concert with each child playing a particular part. This involved a specific costume for each role. My friend encouraged her son to rebel and wear something else.

Because the rest of the world has a problem, not my friend and me“.

John was told that not only would he not be allowed to wear the same costume as the other dancers, he would also be performing in pants as the role of The Doctor, the character who (vomitously) gets to give all the little girls their spoonful of medicine.

Sounds like they were performing The Nutcracker by Tchaikovsky.

Girls can be doctors and wear trousers too, by the way.

For the past few weeks, my friend had been locked in a battle with the coordinator of the school. She has always been a strong advocate for both of her children, allowing them to express themselves and their personalities through their clothing as they please.

Remember, the rest of the world has a problem, not my friend“.

She had thought the issue was resolved, telling the teacher John should be supported to wear his tutu over the pants if that’s what he chose. This is what he wanted, and so he and his entire family turned up to the concert that day wearing tutus.

Sounds like one side of the discussion agreed something the other side didn’t.

Imagine my friend’s horror when she watched as the teacher forced John to the side of the stage and began to remove his clothing to take the tutu off him.

A teacher undressed your child in public? When is the court case?

Oh.

My friend tried to intervene, repeatedly telling the teacher that she was not okay with what was happening while her son stood there crying. To make things worse, the teacher then gave John lollies to stop his tears.

The rest of the world has a problem, not my friend. This is upsetting for my friend’s child, for some reason. Also, lollies contain gelatine which isn’t vegan so is not compatible with our family diet“.

Bill’s Opinion

If you’re looking for a fight, telling a dance school owner that your child isn’t going to wear the costume for the role they have been allocated for the end of term concert is a great way to start one.

One wonders what the dance school owner’s version of this story would read like?

Organising an end of term concert is a nightmare, with 60 kids to train in specific parts and then to sort out the costumes for each. It only takes one or two awkward parents or kids and the whole event becomes a complete pain in the arse.

I should have known that the blue-haired lesbo and her misbehaved kids would cause a problem.

I tried to tell her when she ranted at me a couple of weeks ago that each kid gets a part to play and we allocate the costumes out based on size and fit.

She’s pulled her kids from the school now. Thank fuck.”

“Mr. Chesterton, tear down this wall!”

One of the constants of our age is that, no matter how obscure and bizarre the question, it can be asked by the Guardian.

Well, apart from questions like, “how many genders are there?” or, “how does the Scientific Method relate to climate science?“.

We digress.

Here’s the Grauniad’s Komment Macht Frei section asking, “why do we even need prisons anyway?“.

Amazingly, the article is longer than number of words in the sentence, “because we don’t want Jeffrey Dahmer or Myra Hindley living next door“.

As is the Grauniad’s idiom, sub-editing and logical consistency are unknown concepts. Therefore we have the usual rambling bounce around many disparate points desperately trying to find a consistent narrative.

For example, the reason Australia has jails is because it was a penal colony;

For a settler nation that began as a penal colony, it is no coincidence that we have an obsession with putting people in prisons. 

If only there was a control experiment we could use as a comparison, something like a country that wasn’t originally a penal colony. We could then check to see whether there are prisons in that country or confirm whether they’ve found a more progressive solution. Ah.

It is also no coincidence the ninth biannual Sisters Inside conference held this month, previously titled “Are Prison’s Obsolete?”……….

Probably not as obsolete as that Grocer’s Apostrophe.

…..named after the Professor Angela Davis book and work, was retitled “Imagining Abolition … A World Without Prisons”. It propelled beyond begging the question and instead imagined a future. The conference attracted more than 300 people from Australia and abroad.

That must have been a fun conference. One wonders whether the organisers bothered with hiring security or not?

Redefining language is a key part of the progressive tool kit. This, for example;

At the heart of the three days of the conference were women who have experienced criminalisation and have been imprisoned, self-determination and the role of colonisation and white supremacy in the formation of the prison industrial complex. 

Can be translated back to English as, “female criminals“, unless the authors are suggesting they were (all) victims of miscarriages of justice, in which case the conference should have been concentrating on justice reform not prison abolition.

The rambling goes on;

Despite Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people make up roughly 3% of the nation’s total population, 28% of the total prison population is Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people, with Indigenous women representing the fastest growing of these numbers.

There seems to be an obvious solution staring us in the face here, something along the lines of……. don’t break the damn law.

That’s not how progressive logic works though, is it? A lefty will look at those statistics or the ratios of female to male CEOs and automatically know the root cause is (pick your preferred combination) sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia.

Just to ensure we run the gamut of fallacies, there’s a strawman chucked in the mix;

Any time a black person dies in custody the public often responds with “well they are criminals they deserve it”. 

Do they? Which people say that? Got any examples?

We also rarely see or give platforms for those who have been criminalised to speak to this in their own words.

Have been criminalised is an interesting turn of phrase, almost as if they have no agency or personal responsibility for the outcome. As for not having a platform; do you mean apart from an all expenses trip to Melbourne for a three day conference?

How about this for classic cognitive dissonance;

To build a world without prisons is to disrupt a society built on inequity, patriarchal violence and colonisation.

This means addressing the roots of poverty and trauma.

Nationally, 70-90% of Aboriginal women incarcerated have experienced family violence and most Aboriginal women in prison have experienced sexual trauma. 

That sounds suspiciously like the results of a fully-cultural patriarchy…. and the culture at fault isn’t Western European post-Enlightenment, is it?

But somehow it’s the fault of that Western European post-Enlightenment culture for not fixing it, of course;

This reflects a failure of the state to protect black women….

More intersectional language is deployed but nothing tangible or actionable is actually offered as a solution.

Here’s the final paragraph in full. You may recognise the meaning of the individual words but good luck with understanding them in this combination;

Through the centring of those with lived experience and solidarity between those affected by criminalisation and allies, this conference highlights this movement is growing and strong, and has moved beyond imagining a world without prisons and is ready to build it.

Bill’s Opinion

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

By the way, the authors of this utter guff were;

Nayuka Gorrie is a Kurnai/Gunai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta freelance writer.

That’s five different “nations” they are claiming to belong to, which makes Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee claims seem quite reasonable.

Witt Church is a white social worker living in Naarm (Melbourne). Their work focuses on abolition and supporting communities impacted by criminalisation.

Why do we care about his/her/zher skin tone? Also, if you’re going to use a proper noun to describe a place, it’s probably best to use one universally recognised. To understand why, perhaps try booking a flight to Carthage for your holidays.

When did you stop beating your wife?

There’s been a campaign running since 1991 called the White Ribbon which seeks to get men to pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls.

Very laudable, we’re sure.

Let’s consider the 27 year campaign as an experiment. Is there any evidence it has made a difference?

The Australian version of the campaign publishes selected statistics here. There are a lot of highly-cherry picked data points on that page, feel free to browse them yourself. There is no mention of how these data points have changed over time, however. Which seems an unusual omission if you are requesting generous public donations to a charity that’s had a single purpose for nearly three decades. It’s not unreasonable to ask, “….and how successful has this approach been since 1991?” before handing over a chunk of money.

Fortunately, the source data is linked here at the Government statistics department, the ABS.

Halfway down the page, this gem appears;

Changes in partner violence prevalence rates over time

The proportion of women who experienced partner violence in the previous 12 months has remained relatively stable over the last decade. In 2005, approximately 1.5% of women aged 18 years and over experienced partner violence in the previous 12 months, whilst in 2016 the figure was 1.7%.

Oh, that’s inconvenient. It’s almost as if nearly 30 years of virtue signalling and hectoring of regular law-abiding citizens has had little to no impact to problems in the real world.

Perhaps there’s a clue to be had as to why from the White Ribbon website’s data page;

Indigenous Australia
Statistics show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience high levels of violence and abuse. Family violence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people impacts on the health and social outcomes of women and children.
Indigenous women are 32x more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence than non-indigenous women.

Wait, what? 32 times more likely to be beaten so severely that hospital treatment is required? That’s a shocking data point by any reasonable measure.

Bill’s Opinion

We can argue over the causes of the incredible asymmetry of severe abuse between the indigenous population and everyone else, and perhaps that will be the subject of a further discussion here at another time.

What seems incontrovertible is that White Ribbon Australia’s resources and campaign are incompetently directed. If the charity’s organisers truly wished to reduce serious physical domestic abuse of women, instead of buying hugely expensive TV, radio and internet advertising, running poster campaigns and events in white-collar offices and similar events in major metropolitan centres, it would seem obvious that the resources should be directly-targeted at a particular and easy to identify demographic.

Of course, however noble the original aims of the charity, eventually it becomes a self-sustaining organism.

If this statement seems incorrect, try the following thought experiment; imagine White Ribbon was approached by a pharmaceutical company with a study that suggested they could produce an effective prophylactic with no side effects that could be added, like fluoride for dental health, to the water supply and would immediately prevent men from beating their partners. What would be the response of the charity, do you think?

Well, for a start there would have to be immediate job losses for the full-time staff (who currently account for $2m p.a. of the charity’s operating costs). That’s not going to be popular. Turkeys voting for Christmas, an’ all that. The army of researchers and other hangers on would need to find other sources of income too.

There would also be an end to the need for the following lucrative programme of extortion which, according to the annual accounts, brings in over $2m a year in “fees”;

The White Ribbon Australia Workplace Accreditation Program is our world leading violence-prevention initiative focused on providing organisations with the tools and strategies to actively prevent and effectively respond to violence against women and drive gender equality.
Organisations that demonstrate a commitment to tackling violence against women and meet and exceed 15 criteria across three standards as independently assessed, become accredited as White Ribbon Workplaces.

It’s likely a safe assumption that the current list of accredited organisations is heavily-skewed to those who can pay the fee rather than, say, a liquor store in a town with a large aboriginal population.

Oh look, our old friend Brian “virtue signalling” Hartzer is all over it like a bad case of genital warts.

Corrupt narrative as child abuse

Remember the perfectly rational and sane mother of a young boy who claimed to be transgender at the age of three?

Let’s check in with Emma Salkild, shall we?

Ok, so the young lad is still trans and now has a girl’s name.

The fact that his/her/zher details have not been amended on the healthcare system is an offensive oversight to Emma and, apparently, triggered an argument with a Doctor’s receptionist.

Perhaps we can pause for a moment and ponder whose responsibility it might be to update a minor’s changed personal details on the Medicare database?

Oh yes, the parent or guardian’s.

Just to spell it out; Emma is upset that the new doctor’s surgery didn’t know that she’d decided to rename her son, despite the fact that she’d not actually submitted the requisite request to update his details.

Does that seem like the response of a rational and functioning adult human?

Of course not.

But this is just a minor level of irrationality when compared to her acceptance of the following statements;

– Sex and gender are social constructs, disconnected from biology.

– A 3 year child is able to articulate complex statements about their gender identity.

– It is in the best interests of the child if the parent and wider society agrees to go along with their fantasy that they are the opposite sex than their biology might suggest.

Bill’s Opinion

We all carry irrational and illogical beliefs in our head. Internal consistency is an ideal to be strived for but an impossible ideal.

A surprisingly large number of our irrational beliefs have almost no impact on our or other people’s well-being, however. You can believe the world is only 3,000 years old and we are all descended from Adam and Eve but still wake up, drive to work and manage the Accounts Payable function for a company without those beliefs interfering at all.

However, if you are of the belief that sex and gender are social constructs and, if we could reverse all social conditioning, an individual born with a penis and Y chromosomes can be a woman, AND you act upon these beliefs by imposing this view on a child, we have a problem.

Specifically, this woman is guilty of abusing a 6 year old boy in Sydney, Australia.

It is not unreasonable to anticipate there will be significant legal ramifications to this case in the future.

Where is the intervention by the relevant authorities mandated to consider the child’s well-being? Who is Emma’s Case Officer and what are they doing about this?

This Be The Verse
BY PHILIP LARKIN
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had,
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn,
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf,
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.

“Orwellian” is often over-used

This isn’t one of those occasions.

Male middle school teacher is disciplined for refusing to oversee a female student, who identifies as male, undress.

Follow the link to the story but here’s a summary of the situation;

  • A girl, between the ages of 11 and 13 (USA middle school) identifies as male
  • The school has agreed to allow her to undress in the boys’ changing room
  • A male PE teacher has refused to be present in the changing room while she is undressed
  • The teacher has been disciplined

Stop for a moment and re-read that.
Assuming motivation is claiming to be capable of mind-reading, so we won’t engage in that here. Instead, we will look at what is being asked of individuals by the actions being undertaken;

The student is demanding the teaching staff and male students accept her claim of being male and ignore any physical evidence to the contrary.

The school has agreed to these demands and has passed the requirement to agree to these demands to the male students and the teaching staff.

The male students haven’t agreed to these demands.

The male PE teacher hasn’t agreed to these demands.

Bill’s Opinion

The problem with the school’s decision to accept the demands and require similar acceptance from others is that the school is not the only party which might incur “cost” from the consequences.

It’s not mind reading to assume the male students might feel somewhat uncomfortable about having a naked girl in their changing room. It’s also not mind reading to assume the male teacher doesn’t want to be subject to a criminal prosecution for an inappropriate association with a minor.

By demanding the students and teaching staff agree to the statement, “I’m now a boy” , the school is requiring others to change their thoughts. In the case of the male PE teacher, the school is demanding he ignores his knowledge of criminal legislation, regardless of whether or not the requirement is contrary to his moral or ethical views.

Obviously this is insanity.

More importantly though, what role are the parents, guardians and other responsible adults playing?

Specifically, what on earth are the parents of the girl thinking by allowing her to be naked in the company of naked boys who are going through puberty?

Where’s the duty of care by the school, the Board of Governors, the district education authorities, etc.?

This is the point where the truth and practical consequences of theoretical virtue signalling is tested. A hashtag on Twitter is one thing, going to jail for watching a minor of the opposite sex get undressed is quite a different thing.

Finally, even if everyone involved genuinely signed up to the changes, has anyone thought about the consequences that in a few years the, now older, girl has a change of mind and decides that she was exploited and shouldn’t have been indulged in her teenage mistakes?

Oh, and for the benefit of the anonymous corrector yesterday; yes, I call this Cultural Marxism. What do you call it?