Happy Friday, everyone. For today’s column, I am going to look at a post from Reddit and determine if somebody is in the wrong for not wearing a bra to work.

I broke down a few other of these questions on my show and I also went over the potential dangers of fluoride. You can watch it all here.

Okay, here’s the context for today’s column courtesy of one of Reddit’s famous Am I The A**hole? (AITA?) style posts. Here’s what one person asked:

I (23 Non-Binary AFAB) have stopped wearing a bra to work. I work as an early years teaching assistant so I am constantly bending down to speak to children, pick up toys, etc. And my bra digs into me all day and has been causing me a lot of pain. I have decided to start wearing a tank top under my clothes instead of a bra and I wear lots of layers anyway so, despite having a bigger than average chest, it really isn’t noticeable that I’m not wearing a bra.

The other day I was playing a running game with one of the children so I took my top layer off, I still had on the tank top, a t-shirt, some overalls and a baggy jumper so I was very much covered. Despite this, I was called in to discuss my clothing choices. I had no idea what my boss (42M) was talking about until he mentioned that I really should be wearing a bra around children. I was shocked that he’d even point it out. I told him I felt that I could live without one if it wasn’t obvious and that wearing one was causing me a lot of pain. He said that work was not meant to be comfortable and that I should stick to the ‘unwritten dress code’. I said I would not be wearing one going forward unless the school were willing to pay for one of the comfortable sports bras they make for larger chests (they usually range in price from £70-£150). My boss said I was being unreasonable with my requests and that I would have to wear a bra going forward. If there had been complaints from parents I would understand but no one has said anything apart from him.

AITA?

Yes, sweetheart, I am sorry to say you are the a**hole. Truthfully, I am a little confused why this even needs to be explained.

You’re asking this question and your role is to work with children. Obviously, you have to be appropriate. Your boss has been completely reasonable. His job is not to make you comfortable. Your duty is to come presentable to work.

There is a standard, of course, that when you show up to work, you’re supposed to look professional. You can’t just walk around wearing whatever you want. Whether you work with children or not, that’s true at every company.

The idea that your employer should have to pay because you want a special bra that will make you more comfortable is even more ridiculous.

Obviously, any parent who is dropping off their child at a school, daycare, club, or athletic team thinks the adult who shows up to work is going to be appropriately dressed. 

For some reason, many people have forgotten that decency matters — especially in front of kids.

This post sort of reminds me of a woman who applied for our nannying position. I kid you not, she arrived at my house wearing booty shorts. How could she possibly have thought we were going to hire her? She was wearing short-shorts and a low-cut top.

Why on earth would I want her walking around with my child at a park dressed like that?

It would be blatantly inappropriate.

It’s confusing to me that she would need somebody to sit her down in an office and essentially say, “Hey, you need to dress appropriately in front of small children.”

If the question “What’s appropriate for children?” is a difficult one for you to answer, then you probably shouldn’t have a job around kids.

To be honest, it doesn’t sound as if this person is even mentally fit for the job at all — and not just because she doesn’t want to wear a bra. That you are calling yourself non-binary definitely should have been a red flag for your bosses. You must believe in radical gender ideology that’s not based on truth and is wreaking havoc throughout the West.

This radical gender ideology, along with the nonsense it brings, needs to be taken out of classrooms. The entire goal of this ideology is to break down boundaries so that children can consent to certain sexual things — which they definitely cannot.

This is how you end up with “nonbinary” women thinking they are in the right to let their bare-chest hang loose sans a bra in front of minors.

So yes, to answer your question, you are the a**hole. Until this person puts on a bra, she needs to stay 300 feet away from every playground, daycare, and avoid all children.

It’s that simple.

Investigators questioned the Supreme Court justices as they sought to track down the person who leaked Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last year, but did not force them to sign affidavits.

Alito said late last year that the leak of the draft in May 2022 made the “majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.”

Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley said in a statement on Friday that she “spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions.”

“The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine,” she claimed. “I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses.”

“On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits,” she said.

The statement from Curley comes after the Supreme Court released a statement Thursday saying that investigators could not figure out who leaked the draft to Politico.

A total of 97 individuals were interviewed in the probe, which focused primarily on “Court personnel — temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees — who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication,” the report said.

Those employees were asked to sign an affidavit “affirming that he or she did not disclose the Dobbs draft opinion to any person not employed by the Supreme Court.” It appears that only the Justices were not asked to sign an affidavit.

“Some individuals admitted to investigators that they told their spouse or partner about the draft Dobbs opinion and the vote count, in violation of the Court’s confidentiality rules,” the report added.

The Marshal’s report said that investigators continue to analyze some electronic data that has been collected and that there are still some outstanding inquiries at this time.

“To the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them,” the report said. “If a Court employee disclosed the draft opinion, that person brazenly violated a system that was built fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information.”

The report said that the following federal statutes were relevant to the investigation:

18 U.S.C. § 371 prohibits two or more persons from conspiring to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose. 18 U.S.C. § 401 states that “[a] court of the United States shall have power to punish . . . such contempt of its authority . . . as . . . [m]isbehavior of any person in its presence of so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice” and “[m]isbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions.” 18 U.S.C. § 641 prohibits the disposition “without authority” of any record or thing of value of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 prohibits intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access and thereby obtaining information from any department or agency or the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1503 prohibits “corruptly . . . endeavor[ing] to influence, intimidate, or impede any . . . officer in or of any court of the United States . . . in the discharge of his duty . . . or corruptly . . . influenc[ing], obstruct[ing], or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 1905 prohibits disclosure by federal government employees of information that comes to them in the course of their employment that is known by them to be confidential, including the “identity” of “any person.” 18 U.S.C. § 2071 prohibits unlawful removal of any record filed or deposited with any judicial officer of the United States.