A tutor at Oxford University's St Hilda's college is facing scrutiny for his choice of dress during lectures, which includes makeup, skimpy dresses, and large prosthetic breasts. The tutor, Matt Rattley, teaches biochemistry but presents himself in a manner described by critics as resembling a "pornographic pantomime dame."
Three college graduates have reportedly written to the university expressing concern that Rattley's behavior "violates women's dignity" and creates an "intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment" for students. One academic described a summer heatwave session where Rattley was wearing a miniskirt with visible underwear, stating it felt like "sexual harassment" and that students were being "forced to participate in someone's sexual fetish without being given a choice."
The academic also noted that other attendees behaved as if the attire were normal, which she found distressing. The tutor's appearance has been compared to that of a Canadian trans woodwork teacher who previously drew parental outrage for wearing large prosthetic breasts in a high school setting.
Clare Foges, writing for the Daily Mail, argues that such displays, particularly at an institution historically founded as a women's college, demonstrate a perceived hypocrisy within the progressive left. Foges suggests that while progressives claim to champion equality, issues affecting women are often sidelined, citing examples such as responses to sexual atrocities and the treatment of women in Afghanistan. She posits that the left's response to Rattley's presentation, which she likens to a "grotesque parody" of a woman, stands in contrast to potential outrage over other forms of perceived appropriation.
Oxford University has issued a statement asserting its commitment to being an "inclusive and welcoming place where all members of our community feel respected, valued and able to be themselves." However, critics argue that allowing such attire in an academic setting is not conducive to inclusivity and fails to uphold a duty of care to students. The author contends that there is a distinction between freedom of expression and using that freedom for personal gratification in a public, educational space.