Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s unfortunate you like to pretend your viewpoint is universally shared. If you understand that Valentina Sampaio is a trans woman, then you must also acknowledge that many don’t share your archaic view that she is a man.
Pretending your view is universal is not good for anyone, most especially for you. It leads to idled thinking.
Oh I didn't state the view(fact) is universally shared. Why lie?
I know there are many people who like to play pretend.
Valentina Sampaio is a trans woman. These types of magazines have an incredible platform to steer cultural conversations. They made the decision to support inclusion and love. Don’t buy the magazine if you dislike their editorial decisions. Grow up.
If you think this is about "inclusion" and "love", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you....
Valentina Sampaio is a trans woman. These types of magazines have an incredible platform to steer cultural conversations. They made the decision to support inclusion and love. Don’t buy the magazine if you dislike their editorial decisions. Grow up.
I'm pro trans (and of course the rest of the LGBT).
I would caution heavily against painting it as those that have other views than your own are not supporting inclusion....as you exclude their views as immature.
There are any number of religions and of course personal taste that would not like this, they frankly should not have to be inclusive.
I mean, if you don't like violent sports for example, do we chastise you for not being inclusive?
We used to live in a society where being progressive meant we asked people to just leave others alone to live their lives. Now it seems that we must approve of what others do in accordance with those peoples wishes....or we are labeled as bad, non-inclusive etc. The message of inclusion has become the message of acceptance "or else we'll ruin you".
Really nothing wrong with it other than giving the bigots a fit. Doesn’t affect me in the slightest, nor you. And as long as they disclose upfront they’re not actually female, anyone dating them knows what’s up from the getgo.
not that I have any experience (been with my now-wife since '92), but I don't think that's "allowed".
That's right - a hetero man that says he wants a biological female is considered "wrong".
I'm pro trans (and of course the rest of the LGBT).
I would caution heavily against painting it as those that have other views than your own are not supporting inclusion....as you exclude their views as immature.
There are any number of religions and of course personal taste that would not like this, they frankly should not have to be inclusive.
I mean, if you don't like violent sports for example, do we chastise you for not being inclusive?
We used to live in a society where being progressive meant we asked people to just leave others alone to live their lives. Now it seems that we must approve of what others do in accordance with those peoples wishes....or we are labeled as bad, non-inclusive etc. The message of inclusion has become the message of acceptance "or else we'll ruin you".
I don’t like violent sports, therefore I don’t subscribe to it. If I petitioned sports channels to exclude violent sports in their programming, then you would have a plausible basis for saying I’m exclusionary or “not being inclusive”. But that isn’t the case, is it?
In this instance, I’m advising people who have a problem with the SI editor’s decision to simply not subscribe, just as I don’t subscribe to violent sports. It’s really this simple.
“or else we’ll ruin you”? I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m out to ruin these complainers here. Quite frankly, the only thing that’s ruined, probably, is the usual masturbatory habits of some with arcane views on gender.
Lets return to a little sanity and not have knee jerk freak outs and illogic when an editor decides to use his or her platform to support inclusion.
As I said, don’t buy the magazine if you don’t like it. Hashtag common sense.
This is not about celebrating "feminine beauty"; this is about subverting womanhood and motherhood. Women have periods. They mostly can create children and breast feed them. They have to fight breast cancer and ovarian cancer and uterine cancer. That doesn't even begin to touch upon emotional differences in women. Being a woman is not about dresses and makeup. Men who have undergone surgery are not women and they never will be.
So a female who cannot have periods is not a woman? If she is infertile she is not a woman? Did you know that males get breast cancer, too?
If someone who is genetically male wishes to live as a woman how does that harm you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
