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.
Sports Illustrated just became more irrelevant than it already was.
Indeed, and sports stations and commentary has gotten political as well, just like the late night comedy shows.
Thus there is little time wee are not being pressured/influenced by the marxist progressive fascists. SI use to be somethnig I subscibed to, but no longer.
Maybe they will make up for losing people like me with all the transgenders that will subscribe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Yet another magazine folds to political correctness just like Rolling Stone did when they put the Boston Marathon Bomber on the cover.. Can we file this under the cancel culture club doings?
The world is getting turned over into a Bizzaro realm where wrong is right and right is wrong. I wonder if that Brazilian trans model had the operation or it is a clever tuck and tape job or someone is really good at working the photo shop software?
I can't imagine the number of teen boys that will be questioning themselves when they find out she is really a he?
I never subscribed to RS, but if I had, the episode where they almost glorified the Boston bomber would have been the end.
As to the "up is down", rest assured it is all part of a plot to dis-stabilize this nation via a Saul Alinsky rules for radicals type of effort.
I suspect people like Soros and other globalists are behind it, knowing that our constitutional republic is the only thing standing between them and their dream of a new world order on a planetary scale.
Of course a woman who "cannot have periods" is a woman.
Men do not have periods.
Men cannot have periods either, thus the distinction of periods is women who cannot have periods are different to men who cannot have periods, thus the distinction isn't periods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgirlinnc
Infertility does not affect womanhood.
Men cannot bear a child.
Nor can infertile women bear a child, they also commonly don't have periods. Thus the distinction isn't child bearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgirlinnc
Breast cancer occurs in men at a rate of 1%.
99% of all breast cancers affect women, in large part because of mammary glands.
But men do get breat cancer, and they get in in mammary tissue. Thus again not a distinction. Given the vast majority of women don't have nor will get breast cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgirlinnc
You are grasping at straws and frankly it is pathetic. You know darn well that is not what I was saying.
Well what were you saying? You were saying those that don't have periods, bear children, and can't get breast cancer aren't women. At least that was my take away. But there are millions of women, you include as women, who won't get breast cancer, don't have periods or bear children, and you seem to include these as women, thus your distinctions aren't distinctions.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,496,583 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
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".
the ultimate problem is that there is a paradox in tolerance. As to be ultimately tolerant, you have to also tolerate intolerant bigots who still live in the third century in their minds
That thing is NOT a woman. She (or It) would be better off in Chicks with D**ks.
Sports Illustrated just became more irrelevant than it already was.
Regardless, she is incredibly beautiful.
But the real irrelevance is that SI still has a swimsuit edition. That should have ended years ago.
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.