It's not an ad that anyone here will even see. Dylan Mulvaney has 10 million followers on TikTok and Nike have asked if she wants to feature their products in her videos in return for money.
Sharron Davies has lost her mind over this. She's encouraging her considerably less numerous followers to send Nike products to their European HQ in Amsterdam in protest.
It makes no difference to sports whether Nike employs trans people. This is just her being plain nasty.
Many women think Dylan Mulvaney, aka Dylan Misogyny, is the one being nasty here - and the group he's being nasty to are the female half of the human race.
From the start of his "Days of Girlhood" shtick, Mulvaney has spent more than a year relentlessy mocking members of the female sex by portraying us as shallow, ditzy, completely frivolous and inane airheads whose only function and aim in life is to be pretty, ornamental clothes-horses, wearers of cosmetics and consumers of brand-name products. He's also routinely body-shamed us by, among other things, making fun of us for menstruating and using tampons, and calling the organ we menstruate from and give birth through a "Barbie pouch" and "Barbie pocket."
For this, Mulvaney has not only gotten millions of followers on TikTok and gigs advertising products for brands like Nike, Budweiser, Ulta Beauty and Tampax - he also was invited to the Whte House, where he had a sit-down meeting and personal chat with POTUS Joe Biden, who showered praise on Mulvaney for "living your authentic self" and doing such a good job promoting "trans rights." This was followed up by an official letter of commendation from US VP Kamala Harris congratulating and praising Mulvaney for reaching his 365th "day of girlhood."
Mulvaney's 365th "day of girlhood" was also celberated by a gala and stage show at Radio City and a stay at the legendary Plaza Hotel. At the Plaza, Mulvaney ruined a beloved series of children's books by dressing up like the 6-year-old fictional girl Eloise, and prancing and skipping around for the cameras "girlishly" in a big hair bow, short pleated shirt, knee socks and Mary Janes.
If Mulvaney were getting rich and famous off pretending to be African American, black African, Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, Mexican, Arab etc and making daily social media content for millions in which he histrionically acts out the most degrading, dehumanizing, trivializing and insulting stereotypes about those groups of people for entertainment, everyone would see the problem. Tons of people would be up in arms condemning his behavior.
But because Mulvaney has chosen to caricacture, mock and insult women and girls, he's being celebrated as progressive and lionized for scoring a victory in the male-dominance movement that some falsely claim is the next frontier in civil rights.
It's bad enough that in 2023 men like Mulvaney can make a fortune and be applauded as stunning, brave and heroic for engaging in a modern-day misogynistic equivalent of the racist minstrel shows that white supremacists used to put on in days of yore.
But what's even worse is that blokes like you have the nerve to condemn women who vociferously object to being riduculed, demeaned and debased in this way like Sharron Davies by saying Davies has lost her mind and calling her "plain nasty."
She is right. Illogical women should welcome trans women with open arms. I'm a biological man and welcome trans men to the dold without restriction. Want to line up and race me as a man? Sure, inclusivity is more important than anything.
Many women think Dylan Mulvaney, aka Dylan Misogyny, is the one being nasty here - and the group he's being nasty to are the female half of the human race.
From the start of his "Days of Girlhood" shtick, Mulvaney has spent more than a year relentlessy mocking members of the female sex by portraying us as shallow, ditzy, completely frivolous and inane airheads whose only function and aim in life is to be pretty, ornamental clothes-horses, wearers of cosmetics and consumers of brand-name products. He's also routinely body-shamed us by, among other things, making fun of us for menstruating and using tampons, and calling the organ we menstruate from and give birth through a "Barbie pouch" and "Barbie pocket."
For this, Mulvaney has not only gotten millions of followers on TikTok and gigs advertising products for brands like Nike, Budweiser, Ulta Beauty and Tampax - he also was invited to the Whte House, where he had a sit-down meeting and personal chat with POTUS Joe Biden, who showered praise on Mulvaney for "living your authentic self" and doing such a good job promoting "trans rights." This was followed up by an official letter of commendation from US VP Kamala Harris congratulating and praising Mulvaney for reaching his 365th "day of girlhood."
Mulvaney's 365th "day of girlhood" was also celberated by a gala and stage show at Radio City and a stay at the legendary Plaza Hotel. At the Plaza, Mulvaney ruined a beloved series of children's books by dressing up like the 6-year-old fictional girl Eloise, and prancing and skipping around for the cameras "girlishly" in a big hair bow, short pleated shirt, knee socks and Mary Janes.
If Mulvaney were getting rich and famous off pretending to be African American, black African, Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, Mexican, Arab etc and making daily social media content for millions in which he histrionically acts out the most degrading, dehumanizing, trivializing and insulting stereotypes about those groups of people for entertainment, everyone would see the problem. Tons of people would be up in arms condemning his behavior.
But because Mulvaney has chosen to caricacture, mock and insult women and girls, he's being celebrated as progressive and lionized for scoring a victory in the male-dominance movement that some falsely claim is the next frontier in civil rights.
It's bad enough that in 2023 men like Mulvaney can make a fortune and be applauded as stunning, brave and heroic for engaging in a modern-day misogynistic equivalent of the racist minstrel shows that white supremacists used to put on in days of yore.
But what's even worse is that blokes like you have the nerve to condemn women who vociferously object to being riduculed, demeaned and debased in this way like Sharron Davies by saying Davies has lost her mind and calling her "plain nasty."
She is right. Illogical women should welcome trans women with open arms. I'm a biological man and welcome trans men to the dold without restriction. Want to line up and race me as a man? Sure, inclusivity is more important than anything.
It's not an ad that anyone here will even see. Dylan Mulvaney has 10 million followers on TikTok and Nike have asked if she wants to feature their products in her videos in return for money.
Sharron Davies has lost her mind over this. She's encouraging her considerably less numerous followers to send Nike products to their European HQ in Amsterdam in protest.
It makes no difference to sports whether Nike employs trans people. This is just her being plain nasty.
Many women think Dylan Mulvaney, aka Dylan Misogyny, is the one being nasty here - and the group he's being nasty to are the female half of the human race.
From the start of his "Days of Girlhood" shtick, Mulvaney has spent more than a year relentlessy mocking members of the female sex by portraying us as shallow, ditzy, completely frivolous and inane airheads whose only function and aim in life is to be pretty, ornamental clothes-horses, wearers of cosmetics and consumers of brand-name products. He's also routinely body-shamed us by, among other things, making fun of us for menstruating and using tampons, and calling the organ we menstruate from and give birth through a "Barbie pouch" and "Barbie pocket."
For this, Mulvaney has not only gotten millions of followers on TikTok and gigs advertising products for brands like Nike, Budweiser, Ulta Beauty and Tampax - he also was invited to the Whte House, where he had a sit-down meeting and personal chat with POTUS Joe Biden, who showered praise on Mulvaney for "living your authentic self" and doing such a good job promoting "trans rights." This was followed up by an official letter of commendation from US VP Kamala Harris congratulating and praising Mulvaney for reaching his 365th "day of girlhood."
Mulvaney's 365th "day of girlhood" was also celberated by a gala and stage show at Radio City and a stay at the legendary Plaza Hotel. At the Plaza, Mulvaney ruined a beloved series of children's books by dressing up like the 6-year-old fictional girl Eloise, and prancing and skipping around for the cameras "girlishly" in a big hair bow, short pleated shirt, knee socks and Mary Janes.
If Mulvaney were getting rich and famous off pretending to be African American, black African, Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, Mexican, Arab etc and making daily social media content for millions in which he histrionically acts out the most degrading, dehumanizing, trivializing and insulting stereotypes about those groups of people for entertainment, everyone would see the problem. Tons of people would be up in arms condemning his behavior.
But because Mulvaney has chosen to caricacture, mock and insult women and girls, he's being celebrated as progressive and lionized for scoring a victory in the male-dominance movement that some falsely claim is the next frontier in civil rights.
It's bad enough that in 2023 men like Mulvaney can make a fortune and be applauded as stunning, brave and heroic for engaging in a modern-day misogynistic equivalent of the racist minstrel shows that white supremacists used to put on in days of yore.
But what's even worse is that blokes like you have the nerve to condemn women who vociferously object to being riduculed, demeaned and debased in this way like Sharron Davies by saying Davies has lost her mind and calling her "plain nasty."
I have worn exclusively Nike Pegasus for at least 30 years now. What non-Nike shoes are most similar? 49 male, 75-95 mpw. No history of injuries in 37 years of running. While I'm on the subject, what "super shoes" would be best once my current Vaporfly Next% are done?
For training shoes I would give the Brooks Ghost and Launch a try. They have a similar stack height to the Pegasus. (12 mm for the Ghost and 10mm for the Launch). The Launch will be a little lighter than the Ghost, while the Ghost will have a softer feel. For super shoes the new Saucony Endorphin Pro has a really nice feel to them. It has a softer ride l compared to their earlier model and probably compare best to the Nike super shoes.
It's not an ad that anyone here will even see. Dylan Mulvaney has 10 million followers on TikTok and Nike have asked if she wants to feature their products in her videos in return for money.
Sharron Davies has lost her mind over this. She's encouraging her considerably less numerous followers to send Nike products to their European HQ in Amsterdam in protest.
It makes no difference to sports whether Nike employs trans people. This is just her being plain nasty.
Many women think Dylan Mulvaney, aka Dylan Misogyny, is the one being nasty here - and the group he's being nasty to are the female half of the human race.
From the start of his "Days of Girlhood" shtick, Mulvaney has spent more than a year relentlessy mocking members of the female sex by portraying us as shallow, ditzy, completely frivolous and inane airheads whose only function and aim in life is to be pretty, ornamental clothes-horses, wearers of cosmetics and consumers of brand-name products. He's also routinely body-shamed us by, among other things, making fun of us for menstruating and using tampons, and calling the organ we menstruate from and give birth through a "Barbie pouch" and "Barbie pocket."
For this, Mulvaney has not only gotten millions of followers on TikTok and gigs advertising products for brands like Nike, Budweiser, Ulta Beauty and Tampax - he also was invited to the Whte House, where he had a sit-down meeting and personal chat with POTUS Joe Biden, who showered praise on Mulvaney for "living your authentic self" and doing such a good job promoting "trans rights." This was followed up by an official letter of commendation from US VP Kamala Harris congratulating and praising Mulvaney for reaching his 365th "day of girlhood."
Mulvaney's 365th "day of girlhood" was also celberated by a gala and stage show at Radio City and a stay at the legendary Plaza Hotel. At the Plaza, Mulvaney ruined a beloved series of children's books by dressing up like the 6-year-old fictional girl Eloise, and prancing and skipping around for the cameras "girlishly" in a big hair bow, short pleated shirt, knee socks and Mary Janes.
If Mulvaney were getting rich and famous off pretending to be African American, black African, Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, Mexican, Arab etc and making daily social media content for millions in which he histrionically acts out the most degrading, dehumanizing, trivializing and insulting stereotypes about those groups of people for entertainment, everyone would see the problem. Tons of people would be up in arms condemning his behavior.
But because Mulvaney has chosen to caricacture, mock and insult women and girls, he's being celebrated as progressive and lionized for scoring a victory in the male-dominance movement that some falsely claim is the next frontier in civil rights.
It's bad enough that in 2023 men like Mulvaney can make a fortune and be applauded as stunning, brave and heroic for engaging in a modern-day misogynistic equivalent of the racist minstrel shows that white supremacists used to put on in days of yore.
But what's even worse is that blokes like you have the nerve to condemn women who vociferously object to being riduculed, demeaned and debased in this way like Sharron Davies by saying Davies has lost her mind and calling her "plain nasty."
There is a line and Davies crosses it.
I understand the controversy about trans involvement in sports and some of the arguments around safety in prisons etc. I do not necessarily agree with them and think the issues can be resolved without purging trans people from society.
But this is different. Mulvaney has gainful employment with Nike. This is not about sports participation or bathroom policy. Davies et al are objecting to the employment of someone because they are transgender. There is no pretence here - they do not want a trans person to be visible.
If you a boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their employees and not because of their sweatshops, doped athletes or environmental impact, then you are a terrible human being.
I understand the controversy about trans involvement in sports and some of the arguments around safety in prisons etc. I do not necessarily agree with them and think the issues can be resolved without purging trans people from society.
But this is different. Mulvaney has gainful employment with Nike. This is not about sports participation or bathroom policy. Davies et al are objecting to the employment of someone because they are transgender. There is no pretence here - they do not want a trans person to be visible.
If you a boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their employees and not because of their sweatshops, doped athletes or environmental impact, then you are a terrible human being.
Would you be equally OK with Nike choosing a white person identifying as a black person, to represent black people for them?
I understand the controversy about trans involvement in sports and some of the arguments around safety in prisons etc. I do not necessarily agree with them and think the issues can be resolved without purging trans people from society.
But this is different. Mulvaney has gainful employment with Nike. This is not about sports participation or bathroom policy. Davies et al are objecting to the employment of someone because they are transgender. There is no pretence here - they do not want a trans person to be visible.
If you a boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their employees and not because of their sweatshops, doped athletes or environmental impact, then you are a terrible human being.
Would you be equally OK with Nike choosing a white person identifying as a black person, to represent black people for them?
What has this got to do anything? When gay marriage was being debated people would ask how I'd feel about men marrying their pets as if bestiality was an extension of homosexuality.
Now it's trans people I'm being asked how I'd feel if people identified as different races as if that's an extension of gender identity.
Many women think Dylan Mulvaney, aka Dylan Misogyny, is the one being nasty here - and the group he's being nasty to are the female half of the human race.
From the start of his "Days of Girlhood" shtick, Mulvaney has spent more than a year relentlessy mocking members of the female sex by portraying us as shallow, ditzy, completely frivolous and inane airheads whose only function and aim in life is to be pretty, ornamental clothes-horses, wearers of cosmetics and consumers of brand-name products. He's also routinely body-shamed us by, among other things, making fun of us for menstruating and using tampons, and calling the organ we menstruate from and give birth through a "Barbie pouch" and "Barbie pocket."
For this, Mulvaney has not only gotten millions of followers on TikTok and gigs advertising products for brands like Nike, Budweiser, Ulta Beauty and Tampax - he also was invited to the Whte House, where he had a sit-down meeting and personal chat with POTUS Joe Biden, who showered praise on Mulvaney for "living your authentic self" and doing such a good job promoting "trans rights." This was followed up by an official letter of commendation from US VP Kamala Harris congratulating and praising Mulvaney for reaching his 365th "day of girlhood."
Mulvaney's 365th "day of girlhood" was also celberated by a gala and stage show at Radio City and a stay at the legendary Plaza Hotel. At the Plaza, Mulvaney ruined a beloved series of children's books by dressing up like the 6-year-old fictional girl Eloise, and prancing and skipping around for the cameras "girlishly" in a big hair bow, short pleated shirt, knee socks and Mary Janes.
If Mulvaney were getting rich and famous off pretending to be African American, black African, Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, Mexican, Arab etc and making daily social media content for millions in which he histrionically acts out the most degrading, dehumanizing, trivializing and insulting stereotypes about those groups of people for entertainment, everyone would see the problem. Tons of people would be up in arms condemning his behavior.
But because Mulvaney has chosen to caricacture, mock and insult women and girls, he's being celebrated as progressive and lionized for scoring a victory in the male-dominance movement that some falsely claim is the next frontier in civil rights.
It's bad enough that in 2023 men like Mulvaney can make a fortune and be applauded as stunning, brave and heroic for engaging in a modern-day misogynistic equivalent of the racist minstrel shows that white supremacists used to put on in days of yore.
But what's even worse is that blokes like you have the nerve to condemn women who vociferously object to being riduculed, demeaned and debased in this way like Sharron Davies by saying Davies has lost her mind and calling her "plain nasty."
Would you be equally OK with Nike choosing a white person identifying as a black person, to represent black people for them?
What has this got to do anything? When gay marriage was being debated people would ask how I'd feel about men marrying their pets as if bestiality was an extension of homosexuality.
Now it's trans people I'm being asked how I'd feel if people identified as different races as if that's an extension of gender identity.
If you think that trans is a rights movement like the push for gay marriage, you're sorely misinformed. In fact, the queer movement was always against gay marriage because the queer religious and political project is precisely about deconstructing and dismantling norms, not about giving a marginalized group access to equal rights and protections under the law. See Michael Warner's book, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life.
Queer people believe that society and culture have imprisoned the body by "inscribing" the sex binary onto it, which then imprisons the gendered soul. Those who "disrupt" the binary with their "performances" and nonsensical gender identities are thought to have an elevated understanding of the human spirit, while those who stubbornly insist on the reality of biological sex are handmaidens of the status quo (according to the ideology). The idea here is that queer people will gradually liberate all of us through a continuous cycle of norm disruption. That's why they're hellbent on forcing others to accept their ideas and worldviews. They think they're saving us all from hell on Earth--except, of course, for the psychopaths who recognize a good grift when they see it.
To your point about beastiality, well, that's just queer! Note this recent abstract from the "feminist" journal, Hypatia:
Abstract In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love.
Many women think Dylan Mulvaney, aka Dylan Misogyny, is the one being nasty here - and the group he's being nasty to are the female half of the human race.
From the start of his "Days of Girlhood" shtick, Mulvaney has spent more than a year relentlessy mocking members of the female sex by portraying us as shallow, ditzy, completely frivolous and inane airheads whose only function and aim in life is to be pretty, ornamental clothes-horses, wearers of cosmetics and consumers of brand-name products. He's also routinely body-shamed us by, among other things, making fun of us for menstruating and using tampons, and calling the organ we menstruate from and give birth through a "Barbie pouch" and "Barbie pocket."
For this, Mulvaney has not only gotten millions of followers on TikTok and gigs advertising products for brands like Nike, Budweiser, Ulta Beauty and Tampax - he also was invited to the Whte House, where he had a sit-down meeting and personal chat with POTUS Joe Biden, who showered praise on Mulvaney for "living your authentic self" and doing such a good job promoting "trans rights." This was followed up by an official letter of commendation from US VP Kamala Harris congratulating and praising Mulvaney for reaching his 365th "day of girlhood."
Mulvaney's 365th "day of girlhood" was also celberated by a gala and stage show at Radio City and a stay at the legendary Plaza Hotel. At the Plaza, Mulvaney ruined a beloved series of children's books by dressing up like the 6-year-old fictional girl Eloise, and prancing and skipping around for the cameras "girlishly" in a big hair bow, short pleated shirt, knee socks and Mary Janes.
If Mulvaney were getting rich and famous off pretending to be African American, black African, Jewish, Muslim, Chinese, Mexican, Arab etc and making daily social media content for millions in which he histrionically acts out the most degrading, dehumanizing, trivializing and insulting stereotypes about those groups of people for entertainment, everyone would see the problem. Tons of people would be up in arms condemning his behavior.
But because Mulvaney has chosen to caricacture, mock and insult women and girls, he's being celebrated as progressive and lionized for scoring a victory in the male-dominance movement that some falsely claim is the next frontier in civil rights.
It's bad enough that in 2023 men like Mulvaney can make a fortune and be applauded as stunning, brave and heroic for engaging in a modern-day misogynistic equivalent of the racist minstrel shows that white supremacists used to put on in days of yore.
But what's even worse is that blokes like you have the nerve to condemn women who vociferously object to being riduculed, demeaned and debased in this way like Sharron Davies by saying Davies has lost her mind and calling her "plain nasty."
There is a line and Davies crosses it.
I understand the controversy about trans involvement in sports and some of the arguments around safety in prisons etc. I do not necessarily agree with them and think the issues can be resolved without purging trans people from society.
But this is different. Mulvaney has gainful employment with Nike. This is not about sports participation or bathroom policy. Davies et al are objecting to the employment of someone because they are transgender. There is no pretence here - they do not want a trans person to be visible.
If you a boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their employees and not because of their sweatshops, doped athletes or environmental impact, then you are a terrible human being.
So in your view, if corporations are willing to give men like Mulvaney "gainful employment" doing insulting impersonations of female people that ridicule, dehumanize and reduce us to nothing but superficial and sexist stereotypes, it's fine for them to do so?
Once white American men with the sort of talent for singing, dancing and hamming it up that Mulvaney has were able to obtain "gainful employment" doing minstrel shows in which they mocked and dehumanized black African American men by reducing them to the worst racist stereotypes. That okay with you too?
No one is boycotting Nike "because of the minority status of one of their employees" like you claim. Women and men who aren't sexists and misogynists are boycotting Nike and objecting to Mulvaney because Dylan Mulvaney is a member of the male sex who with the support of major corporations is making big bucks mocking, dehumanizing, demeaning and lording it over people of the female sex - just as men and boys have done to women and girls for millennia.
Dylan Mulvaney is a privileged MAN from a wealthy, prominent, ultra-establishment, hoity-toity American family who grew up in the lap of luxury, has a musical theater degree from a top school and is represented by the one of most powerful talent agencies in the world. At age 25, Mulvaney decided to become a gender grifter after realizing that in today's cultural climate, a man of his talents could easily become rich and famous from ridiculing and debasing women by doing an over-the-top, super-campy version of womanface, the misogynistic equivalent of racist blackface.
What has this got to do anything? When gay marriage was being debated people would ask how I'd feel about men marrying their pets as if bestiality was an extension of homosexuality.
Now it's trans people I'm being asked how I'd feel if people identified as different races as if that's an extension of gender identity.
If you think that trans is a rights movement like the push for gay marriage, you're sorely misinformed. In fact, the queer movement was always against gay marriage because the queer religious and political project is precisely about deconstructing and dismantling norms, not about giving a marginalized group access to equal rights and protections under the law. See Michael Warner's book, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life.
Queer people believe that society and culture have imprisoned the body by "inscribing" the sex binary onto it, which then imprisons the gendered soul. Those who "disrupt" the binary with their "performances" and nonsensical gender identities are thought to have an elevated understanding of the human spirit, while those who stubbornly insist on the reality of biological sex are handmaidens of the status quo (according to the ideology). The idea here is that queer people will gradually liberate all of us through a continuous cycle of norm disruption. That's why they're hellbent on forcing others to accept their ideas and worldviews. They think they're saving us all from hell on Earth--except, of course, for the psychopaths who recognize a good grift when they see it.
To your point about beastiality, well, that's just queer! Note this recent abstract from the "feminist" journal, Hypatia:
Abstract In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love.
If you think that trans is a rights movement like the push for gay marriage, you're sorely misinformed. In fact, the queer movement was always against gay marriage because the queer religious and political project is precisely about deconstructing and dismantling norms, not about giving a marginalized group access to equal rights and protections under the law. See Michael Warner's book, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life.
Queer people believe that society and culture have imprisoned the body by "inscribing" the sex binary onto it, which then imprisons the gendered soul. Those who "disrupt" the binary with their "performances" and nonsensical gender identities are thought to have an elevated understanding of the human spirit, while those who stubbornly insist on the reality of biological sex are handmaidens of the status quo (according to the ideology). The idea here is that queer people will gradually liberate all of us through a continuous cycle of norm disruption. That's why they're hellbent on forcing others to accept their ideas and worldviews. They think they're saving us all from hell on Earth--except, of course, for the psychopaths who recognize a good grift when they see it.
To your point about beastiality, well, that's just queer! Note this recent abstract from the "feminist" journal, Hypatia:
Abstract In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love.
So the gay people I know that are married were against gay marriage?
That is not at all what I said or even implied. I said that the trans movement is queer and that the queer movement has always been against gay marriage because queer means railing against all norms. Therefore, people who treat the trans movement like liberal rights movements of the past are making a mistake. They don't understand what the trans movement actually is.
Unlike gay people who simply wanted to get married, queer people want to tear apart society. And here they are in 2020 arguing that zoophilia is part of the LGBTQ umbrella, hence the title LGBTQ...Z
If you think that trans is a rights movement like the push for gay marriage, you're sorely misinformed. In fact, the queer movement was always against gay marriage because the queer religious and political project is precisely about deconstructing and dismantling norms, not about giving a marginalized group access to equal rights and protections under the law. See Michael Warner's book, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life.
Queer people believe that society and culture have imprisoned the body by "inscribing" the sex binary onto it, which then imprisons the gendered soul. Those who "disrupt" the binary with their "performances" and nonsensical gender identities are thought to have an elevated understanding of the human spirit, while those who stubbornly insist on the reality of biological sex are handmaidens of the status quo (according to the ideology). The idea here is that queer people will gradually liberate all of us through a continuous cycle of norm disruption. That's why they're hellbent on forcing others to accept their ideas and worldviews. They think they're saving us all from hell on Earth--except, of course, for the psychopaths who recognize a good grift when they see it.
To your point about beastiality, well, that's just queer! Note this recent abstract from the "feminist" journal, Hypatia:
Abstract In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love.
I understand the controversy about trans involvement in sports and some of the arguments around safety in prisons etc. I do not necessarily agree with them and think the issues can be resolved without purging trans people from society.
But this is different. Mulvaney has gainful employment with Nike. This is not about sports participation or bathroom policy. Davies et al are objecting to the employment of someone because they are transgender. There is no pretence here - they do not want a trans person to be visible.
If you a boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their employees and not because of their sweatshops, doped athletes or environmental impact, then you are a terrible human being.
So in your view, if corporations are willing to give men like Mulvaney "gainful employment" doing insulting impersonations of female people that ridicule, dehumanize and reduce us to nothing but superficial and sexist stereotypes, it's fine for them to do so?
Once white American men with the sort of talent for singing, dancing and hamming it up that Mulvaney has were able to obtain "gainful employment" doing minstrel shows in which they mocked and dehumanized black African American men by reducing them to the worst racist stereotypes. That okay with you too?
No one is boycotting Nike "because of the minority status of one of their employees" like you claim. Women and men who aren't sexists and misogynists are boycotting Nike and objecting to Mulvaney because Dylan Mulvaney is a member of the male sex who with the support of major corporations is making big bucks mocking, dehumanizing, demeaning and lording it over people of the female sex - just as men and boys have done to women and girls for millennia.
Dylan Mulvaney is a privileged MAN from a wealthy, prominent, ultra-establishment, hoity-toity American family who grew up in the lap of luxury, has a musical theater degree from a top school and is represented by the one of most powerful talent agencies in the world. At age 25, Mulvaney decided to become a gender grifter after realizing that in today's cultural climate, a man of his talents could easily become rich and famous from ridiculing and debasing women by doing an over-the-top, super-campy version of womanface, the misogynistic equivalent of racist blackface.
If not Mulvaney, which trans person would you be okay with being a Nike ambassador? My guess is any other trans person in this role would have elicited the same response. Don't pretend this is specifically about the unique character of this one person.
Also, quit with the blackface comparisons. Blackface was about expanding the divide between the races based on racial stereotypes. Blackface racist humor was "look here's a black person and they're totally different from us white folk". Trans and non-binary identities are about blurring the boundaries of gender. They're pulling in opposite directions.
So in your view, if corporations are willing to give men like Mulvaney "gainful employment" doing insulting impersonations of female people that ridicule, dehumanize and reduce us to nothing but superficial and sexist stereotypes, it's fine for them to do so?
Once white American men with the sort of talent for singing, dancing and hamming it up that Mulvaney has were able to obtain "gainful employment" doing minstrel shows in which they mocked and dehumanized black African American men by reducing them to the worst racist stereotypes. That okay with you too?
No one is boycotting Nike "because of the minority status of one of their employees" like you claim. Women and men who aren't sexists and misogynists are boycotting Nike and objecting to Mulvaney because Dylan Mulvaney is a member of the male sex who with the support of major corporations is making big bucks mocking, dehumanizing, demeaning and lording it over people of the female sex - just as men and boys have done to women and girls for millennia.
Dylan Mulvaney is a privileged MAN from a wealthy, prominent, ultra-establishment, hoity-toity American family who grew up in the lap of luxury, has a musical theater degree from a top school and is represented by the one of most powerful talent agencies in the world. At age 25, Mulvaney decided to become a gender grifter after realizing that in today's cultural climate, a man of his talents could easily become rich and famous from ridiculing and debasing women by doing an over-the-top, super-campy version of womanface, the misogynistic equivalent of racist blackface.
If not Mulvaney, which trans person would you be okay with being a Nike ambassador? My guess is any other trans person in this role would have elicited the same response. Don't pretend this is specifically about the unique character of this one person.
Also, quit with the blackface comparisons. Blackface was about expanding the divide between the races based on racial stereotypes. Blackface racist humor was "look here's a black person and they're totally different from us white folk". Trans and non-binary identities are about blurring the boundaries of gender. They're pulling in opposite directions.
Dylan is also very accurately portraying the personality of a majority of women. They are upset it is so on the nose. Blackface, by comparison, highlighted negative stereotypes.
I watch Dylan "perform" and think yep, thats basically the accurate portrait of the majority of shallow, painted women around at least this country.
Same people whining about Dylan getting a sponsorship are the same that whined and chirped about Kaepernick. Transphobes will be remembered just as the homophones against gay marriage and the racists against integration. Go ahead and see if your silly little boycott will work lol
Is your post meant to make proponents of transgenderism look even more insane then they are?
Do you think opposition to women having their uteruses excavated and breasts severed or to men having their johnsons and balls cut off is similar to opposition to people based on their race?
Just about everyone who lived before the 20th century, anywhere, would not accept the idea that a same-sex couple could constitute a marriage. Do you think they were all hateful?
Same people whining about Dylan getting a sponsorship are the same that whined and chirped about Kaepernick. Transphobes will be remembered just as the homophones against gay marriage and the racists against integration. Go ahead and see if your silly little boycott will work lol
Is your post meant to make proponents of transgenderism look even more insane then they are?
Do you think opposition to women having their uteruses excavated and breasts severed or to men having their johnsons and balls cut off is similar to opposition to people based on their race?
Just about everyone who lived before the 20th century, anywhere, would not accept the idea that a same-sex couple could constitute a marriage. Do you think they were all hateful?
Correction: Is your post meant to make proponents of transgenderism look even more insane than they are?
I understand the controversy about trans involvement in sports and some of the arguments around safety in prisons etc. I do not necessarily agree with them and think the issues can be resolved without purging trans people from society.
But this is different. Mulvaney has gainful employment with Nike. This is not about sports participation or bathroom policy. Davies et al are objecting to the employment of someone because they are transgender. There is no pretence here - they do not want a trans person to be visible.
If you a boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their employees and not because of their sweatshops, doped athletes or environmental impact, then you are a terrible human being.
No one is "boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their" online influencers paid to flog the brand.
People are boycotting Nike because the mega-corporation with a history of giving short shrift to female athletes has chosen to use an obviously male person who has skyrocketed to fame by mockingly impersonating women in a mean-spirited, demeaning, stereotyping and misogynistic manner - and who from his underweight body does not appear to work out - to serve as a model and ambassador for exercise clothing meant for female people.
Also, lots of people aren't going to buy into the view that because he's done womanface on camera and in public appearances for the past year, Dylan Mulvaney now counts as an oppressed, put-upon member of a marginalized group with "minority status."
Mulvaney might be somewhat socially disadvantaged in some social circles and countries like Uganda and Iran because he's a gay man - and because he behaves in the campy, flamboyant way that a small minority of theatrical gay men have historically been known to do and which many people (including lots of gay men) find annoying. But in much of the USA and Western world today - and especially in the realm of the performing arts where Mulvaney works - being a gay man, even a flamboyant one, is no longer the drawback it once was.
Plus, if Mulvaney feels that he is marginalized for being a supposed "transwoman," he always has the prerogative to identify out of his supposed womanhood - or girlhood, rather - just as easily and quickly as he identified into it in the first place. Of course, this is not an option open to any of the female people Mulvaney is making money from caricaturing, insulting and body-shaming for having so-called "Barbie pockets" rather than dicks and balls like Dylan has. But as a male - and a male who has shown a fondness for publicly bragging and singing about the crotch "bulge" his dick and balls make in his "Days of Girlhood" clips - Mulvaney sure does have an easy out.
In a snap, Dylan Mulvaney could quit the cosplay, drop the pretend-woman act and dial down or entirely dispense with histrionics and all the diva-like affections he appears to have picked up from watching way too many male drag queens. If Mulvaney did that, he'd be able to enjoy a life of male privilege like many other well-heeled gay men in the world of entertainment and media such as Elton John, Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon long have done.
BTW, here's a clip of Mulvaney performing on stage wearing nothing but a skimpy pair of baby blue Calvin Klein men's briefs several years ago when was still clearly comfortable just being a gay guy. He looks completely at home in his skin and just as proud of the crotch bulge that his men's underpants are showing off as he has in the past year when he's bragged about how the bulge his male genitals make draws attention when he goes out and about dressed in tight-fitting clothing cut for a woman's body.
Dylan Mulvaney joins The Skivvies (Lauren Molina and Nick Cearley) to perform a mashup of Sixteen Going on Seventeen (The Sound of Music), Teenage Dream (Kat...
Interestingly, "young professional actor" was the identity label Mulvaney used for himself in that clip.
The fact that Dylan tried to play up his youthful allure by choosing "Sixteen Going On Seventeen" from "The Sound of Music" as his song selection in that scantily-clad stage performance from several years ago makes me wonder: could Mulvaney's decision to start cosplaying as a girl/woman when he hit 25 be partly related to him realizing that he'd reached the age when no one in the gay male scene would consider him a cute and fetching so-called "twink" any more?
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
I understand the controversy about trans involvement in sports and some of the arguments around safety in prisons etc. I do not necessarily agree with them and think the issues can be resolved without purging trans people from society.
But this is different. Mulvaney has gainful employment with Nike. This is not about sports participation or bathroom policy. Davies et al are objecting to the employment of someone because they are transgender. There is no pretence here - they do not want a trans person to be visible.
If you a boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their employees and not because of their sweatshops, doped athletes or environmental impact, then you are a terrible human being.
No one is "boycotting Nike because of the minority status of one of their" online influencers paid to flog the brand.
People are boycotting Nike because the mega-corporation with a history of giving short shrift to female athletes has chosen to use an obviously male person who has skyrocketed to fame by mockingly impersonating women in a mean-spirited, demeaning, stereotyping and misogynistic manner - and who from his underweight body does not appear to work out - to serve as a model and ambassador for exercise clothing meant for female people.
Also, lots of people aren't going to buy into the view that because he's done womanface on camera and in public appearances for the past year, Dylan Mulvaney now counts as an oppressed, put-upon member of a marginalized group with "minority status."
Mulvaney might be somewhat socially disadvantaged in some social circles and countries like Uganda and Iran because he's a gay man - and because he behaves in the campy, flamboyant way that a small minority of theatrical gay men have historically been known to do and which many people (including lots of gay men) find annoying. But in much of the USA and Western world today - and especially in the realm of the performing arts where Mulvaney works - being a gay man, even a flamboyant one, is no longer the drawback it once was.
Plus, if Mulvaney feels that he is marginalized for being a supposed "transwoman," he always has the prerogative to identify out of his supposed womanhood - or girlhood, rather - just as easily and quickly as he identified into it in the first place. Of course, this is not an option open to any of the female people Mulvaney is making money from caricaturing, insulting and body-shaming for having so-called "Barbie pockets" rather than dicks and balls like Dylan has. But as a male - and a male who has shown a fondness for publicly bragging and singing about the crotch "bulge" his dick and balls make in his "Days of Girlhood" clips - Mulvaney sure does have an easy out.
In a snap, Dylan Mulvaney could quit the cosplay, drop the pretend-woman act and dial down or entirely dispense with histrionics and all the diva-like affections he appears to have picked up from watching way too many male drag queens. If Mulvaney did that, he'd be able to enjoy a life of male privilege like many other well-heeled gay men in the world of entertainment and media such as Elton John, Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon long have done.
BTW, here's a clip of Mulvaney performing on stage wearing nothing but a skimpy pair of baby blue Calvin Klein men's briefs several years ago when was still clearly comfortable just being a gay guy. He looks completely at home in his skin and just as proud of the crotch bulge that his men's underpants are showing off as he has in the past year when he's bragged about how the bulge his male genitals make draws attention when he goes out and about dressed in tight-fitting clothing cut for a woman's body.
Interestingly, "young professional actor" was the identity label Mulvaney used for himself in that clip.
The fact that Dylan tried to play up his youthful allure by choosing "Sixteen Going On Seventeen" from "The Sound of Music" as his song selection in that scantily-clad stage performance from several years ago makes me wonder: could Mulvaney's decision to start cosplaying as a girl/woman when he hit 25 be partly related to him realizing that he'd reached the age when no one in the gay male scene would consider him a cute and fetching so-called "twink" any more?
Any biological female can opt out just as easily by identifying as male. It works both ways.
