September 26, 2022 - 10:10am
Last week there was internet uproar at the discovery that a male teacher in Ontario goes to work wearing breasts so huge they’d be absurd by the standards of a seaside postcard.
Photographs of this individual, known as “Kayla Lemieux”, were reportedly leaked by students uncomfortable with the situation. The fake breasts are indeed so gargantuan, and the nipples so prominent, that it’s difficult to see how anyone could wear them except as either fetish gear or a prank. In Ontario, though, the Human Rights Code forbids discrimination against anyone on the grounds of ‘gender expression’, a category of such seemingly infinite flexibility that it appears to cover wearing absurdly enormous prosthetic breasts to your teaching job in a secondary school. Accordingly, the school has defended Lemieux.
Much online outrage suggested Lemieux was using Ontario’s human rights laws as a cover for exercising a grotesque fetish around children, and reacted with wholly justifiable disgust. Another more recent rumour, though, suggests ‘Kayla Lamieux’ is neither a sincere identity nor a fetish, but a prank. Someone on the Anonymous messageboard, who claims to be a student in this man’s class, says the giant prosthetic breasts are in fact a kind of absurdist protest. The student goes on to say that the teacher hates ‘woke culture’ and would regularly ‘drop redpills to his class, such as how silly gender neutral bathrooms are’. His aim is probably ‘to get fired, then sue for discrimination’.
If this is so, though, does it change anything? Sadly, probably not. For regardless of intentions, the actual function of satire is rarely to dismantle what it mocks. More often, it has a parasitic (and, arguably, reinforcing) relation to its subject, in more precisely defining its boundaries. Historically, satirists from ancient Greece and Rome onward have taken aim at those in power not with the aim of removing them, but of disciplining bad actors: that is, when confronted with satire, people develop a better sense of what ‘going too far’ looks like, and the culture corrects accordingly.
Readers may recall the 2018 Sokal Squared hoax, in which James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose seeded peer-reviewed journals with absurd ‘critical studies’ papers they’d simply made up. It caused a huge stir, but neither academia’s perverse incentives nor the often ridiculous stances in ‘critical studies’ have noticeably changed as a result. Academia is still publishing, apparently sincerely, autoethnographic studies about pedophilic masturbation.
And in much the same way, if Lemieux is attempting to force an absurd anti-discrimination law to breaking point, the attempt has failed. Rather than forcing the school to confront the grotesque absurdity of letting a male wear prosthetic boobs to a teaching job, it’s simply prompted a debate on what size and shape the prosthetics should be. The school, exasperated at the international attention they’ve garnered, has simply approved a new dress code that would force Lemieux to wear slightly smaller fake boobs.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHoax or not, many more preposterous and sickening displays like this one are guaranteed unless the Queer ‘Theorists’, gender ideologues and their idiot progressive supporters are booted back to obscurity.
So would they just flog him in Singapore to resolve this dilemma? I am beginning to like their justice system more every day.
It is all just the Woke’s Groomer Charter. sickkos….
Whatever the motive, a teacher presenting himself like this to his students is in grotesquely bad taste.
True. School is not the place for any of this. But then again schools have become politicised. So goodbye education.
Actually, physically dangerous to be working with and around power tools with such long hair hanging loosely and the fake boobs would also impair the wearer’s ability to see anything beneath.
I have a strong sense the video we saw was staged for our benefit.
Sorry, you got that one wrong. This all on the ridiculous institutions – schools, medical establisments, human rights quangos, universities- that jumped into an ideological cesspit.
It is distasteful to most people, beyond that though, it’s much less of an issue than men with nefarious sexual intentions claiming to be females in order to gain access to children or vulnerable women. The gender ‘police’ because of their slavish ideology can do nothing to stop that.
Mary’s gone a bit overbleak on this one. True, much like Chris Morris didn’t rid the world of absurd news presentation, this won’t rid the world of genderwang, but . . . it is quite funny, and keeps the spirits up in the trenches
Bizacktly presacktly! Every lil’ bit helps ☺
Agreed. If it’s satirical then it’s clever. Mary’s wrong about the impact of satire.
The caption should read ‘on HIS way to school’, not ‘her’. Don’t give the nutty ideologues an inch.
Great article, good insights about satire being a roundabout way of reproducing a dominant culture / system. But not altogether fair on the Sokal Squared hoaxers: Peter Boghossian has been constructively dismissed from his university for shining a spotlight on bogus academic disciplines.
I think satire may at times, perhaps often, weaken an institution. The power of an institution rests ultimately on a threat of force and, when an institution is no longer regarded as threatening, it has no power. Ridicule can, it seems to me, hollow out the power of an institution by making it an object of mockery to so many that the institution cannot, as a practical matter, exercise enough of a threat of force to be taken seriously.
erikhildinger.com
This is a rather defeatist way of looking at this prank if it is indeed one. The sheer amount of negative publicity that has been generated has shone a global spotlight on an ideology that has gone off the guardrails. No matter how the school tries to refine its dress code -a pointless exercise in a world where lunacy is validated at every turn- the visceral images are imprinted upon many previously unwilling to connect the dots. Cognitive dissonance has to have set in. Also, we gender critical dissidents can all take the piss – with pronouns and ‘gender expression’ shifting hourly with our girl, boy and anime mode- and give these captured institutions a run for their money.
“lunacy is validated” – lot of that going about, no?
That’s my thinking too – it’s had an enormous impact locally, national and globally. Well done that ‘man’!
“…now hear this: all staff and students are now subject to mandatory periodic breast inspection by the principal to ensure dress code compliance. Exceptions will not be made for “biological” females or “natural” breasts as that would be discriminatory and violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. Please give the principal your full cooperation . . .”
Satire may not make any difference and may be a waste of energy, but it makes me feel better. You have to laugh to keep from crying, as they say . . .
We have gone through the looking glass.
Next step, an 18″ bulge running down the in-seam of its pants. Think that would fit in with the new dress code? “I identify as a horse”
As Anthony Daniels, aka, Theodore Dalrymple once memorably said: “satire is now prophecy”.
But I disagree with Mary here. I love throwing it back in their faces and letting them stew in their own juices. This is amusement as well as protest.
For example, when asked what my gender pronouns are, I normally say, “neggr”. Which forces them either to say something that sounds phonetically much like their dreaded “N” word or to misgender me, both of which are intolerable situations for their beleaguered psyche.
I saw a bumper sticker recently that said “My pronouns are F**k/You”. Without asterisks.
It would appear that Kayla Lemieux is a fan of SouthPark because, if this is a hoax (and even if it is not), it is ripped from Season 6, episode 14 “Death Camp of Tolerance”. Mr Garrison wants to cash in on a discrimination suit against the school district so he starts to act out in ways that make his students uncomfortable with his over-the-top explicit antics. The kids are chastised by their parents for being intolerant of Mr Garrison and sent to Tolerance Camp to be re-educated. Mr Garrison eventually blows up at the school district when he is constantly praised instead of being fired for his actions. He is then punished by being sent to the Tolerance Camp because he is intolerant of himself….
“tolerating something does not mean that you have to like it” – Mr Garrison
“…that it’s difficult to see how anyone could wear them except as either fetish gear or a prank.”
Another possibility is that the wearer is trying to make a point: “I will wear these as provocation to those who don’t accept gender self-expression because the law says I can.”
And unless the law is amended that is probably the result.
Two large points… 1 ) to mock and 2 ) to provoke
Looks like he’s set up a booby trap for his woke employers.
If Justin Trudeau can be accepted in black face then this shop teacher can certainly do the same with his get up.
A dress code would have no effect on the size of a woman’s breasts. A dress code would only affect her clothing. So any dress code would do nothing about this particular story. Unless the school admin recognizes that male perverts with an autogynephile fetish are in fact men. And that would be illegal under Canada’s clownworld laws.
Besides, nobody can tell the difference between journalism and satire these days.
I disagree with Mary, satire and ridicule are useful in combatting gender nonsense in particular and ‘wokery’ in general. I hope Mr/Ms Lemieux’s charade will encourage some imitators at other institutions that enthusiastically promote gender absurdity.
A new dress code? Is that not a curb on “gender expression”? Has this man not reflected back to “the school” its own hypocrisy? And is that not delicious enough all by itself?
I wonder how a person wearing a giant strap-on codpiece would have been treated?
Was it satire? Or not?
In either case, why does the answer matter?
Welcome to the World of Poe’s Law in which “every parody of extreme views can be mistaken as a sincere expression of the views being parodied.” It makes no difference whether the the walking Grotesquerie was satirizing or underlining gender impossibilities: the outcome was disgust.
Or should have been disgust, a crawling of the skin, that nauseous refusal of mind and body to accept perversion. But this perversion was actually no more perverse than the social imposition & acceptance of any trans-absurdity. Men cannot become women, nor women men. Neither can they become zebras, oak trees, or a Snickers Bars — not even if they triply click their heels together , while wishing really, really hard. It’s not happening; it will never happen.
Does the size of the fake-breasts make this lie any more or less ludicrous than the lies encouraged by far more ‘realistic’ fakery? If we are actually fooled by a lie does it make the lie true? Or does it simply mean the liar is darned good at deception?
And of course the biggest & most damaging lie of all is the school board mandate that declares it’s righteous & reasonable for full-grown adults to play gender-pretend in our children’s classrooms. It’s ‘self-expression’, don’t you know!
From the traffic on Twitter, this has become a thing of inspiration. Rebel News pushing their website https://twitter.com/RebelNews_CA/status/1574106883916537864. In a two hour video https://twitter.com/2Artdesigncafe/status/1573409742122262528, we see people wrapped up in an elaborate near staged play. The person involved has pushed some buttons.
Well, was it a hoax. Can’t someone find out? Why is everything left so vague?
Sure it wasn’t Katie price with an IQ injection?
‘Lysistrata’ comes to mind
No more disgusting than a big belly.
Oh is that fat shaming
a Canadian, eh?…. quelle suprise…
They appear to have lost the plot.
He’s reflecting the big win in Italy by Meloni. (melons).
There’s a woman at our local grocery store who has breasts just like that, and they’re not prosthetic! I kind of feel sorry for her.
Part of the problem may be how much of the attention is international rather than local. Many people in Canada haven’t heard anything about it.
His intentions were pedophile in nature, it’s a paraphilia, he got off on it, and no it can not be excused as a mere satire because only a sick individual would wear those breasts in front of minor students.
OMG….I called this last week!!
I was analyzing it and talking with people about it and I said i wonder if this teacher is doing it to break the ‘system’ because it is so ridiculous , it was too ridiculous, my spydy sense went up.
I told my friends this would be a perfect way to highlight the lunacy of this culture and policy. it’s sooo ridiculous that we can ALL agree. WHO thinks it’s appropriate ?
We don’t know yet that it’s a satire. Of course it would be great if it was, but I’m not celebrating yet.
Is winding people up the same as satire?
No, satire is taking the p***. Winding people up is provocation or incitement. Both can be funny, but provocation can quickly escalate with undesirable consequences.
Poor guy just wanted to make a point, and just ended up having to wear gigantic boobs in perpetuity.
I guess he made two points.
Satire, by definition, is funny. Watch the video, and marvel at his/her antics with the circular saw and two-by-four…
If satire wasn’t dangerous, religions wouldn’t expend so much of their indignant froth on trying to protect themselves from it.
Fair point!
I’ll wait until this is more than a rumor on the Anonymous messageboard. To me it seems to be wishful thinking that this is a hoax and a protest. I would certainly be relieved if it was a hoax, but I agree that if it was satire, it has not worked to change anything.
So, anything goes providing there is a rule or regulation that allows grotesqueries to be tuned down a wee bit?
This chap is turning out to be quite a handful.
I can’t help but think about the so-called satire of drag in terms of its effect on women. The argument that satire ends up sanctioning the very thing it makes fun of is compelling and neatly fits into why drag is so detrimental to women.
It also makes me think of the arguments surrounding whether or not men larping as women like Dylan Mulvaney are actually grifters and farcical. My position has always been that it doesn’t matter, the effect on women, and girls and children is the same. Just like those who argue that drag is harmless because the men performing this either, defense A, defense B, or defense C. It doesn’t matter the effect is the same. Further, any man who has one iota of respect for women simply could not fathom participating in that kind of mockery.
If this is a hoax, then I have nothing but admiration for him. Takes a lot of nerve to attack this nonsense head on.
As to Mary’s final point, didn’t Margaret Thatcher’s Spitting Image puppet bolster her reputation for being tough and uncompromising?
He doesn’t look very different from Chesty Morgan, if there’s still anyone around who remembers her.
She didn’t think of herself as a joke.
He doesn’t look very different from Chesty Morgan, if there’s still anyone around who remembers her.
She didn’t think of herself as a joke.