The controversial Corporate Equality Index (CEI) scoring system, overseen by the Human Rights Campaign, awards companies beneficial points for moves like endorsing trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
I've never understood the trans movement. I'm a man who has enjoyed dressing up as a woman since I was a boy in the 1960's. It's a real erotic thrill walking down the street pretending to be a woman, all the men knowing you are a bloke in a dress, but some of them wolf whistling and more. But at the end of the day, you go home, undress, and you're a man again, and you go to.work the next day - as a man. I don't get the point of actually believing you are a woman just because you like to put on a dress..
You have a high testosterone level. Many young men today feel feminine due to low testosterone levels. Each generation has less testosterone than the previous. It's finally getting to the point where many males feel like a female.
Weird. And, I don't get it. But it's not my problem
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.
The blackface comparison is entirely apt.
Blackface and minstrel shows were done by members of the dominant group who held the power and set the rules in society (white people, mainly white men) to ridicule, demean and punch down on the the group they historically dominated, mistreated, dehumanized, deprived of civil and human rights, physically abused, trafficked and enslaved (black people).
Womanface and Dylan Mulvaney's "Days of Girlhood" gender grift are being done by members of the dominant group who have always held the power and set the rules in nearly all the world's societies (men) to ridicule, demean and punch down on the group males throughout history and across cultures have dominated, mistreated, dehumanized, deprived of civil and human rights, physically abused, trafficked and enslaved (women and girls).
During slavery in the US, black people were the property of their white "owners," and blacks were subject to the absolute control and authority of whites, who used violence and threats of violence to keep black people "in their place" and under the thumb of whites.
Through most of history, female people have been the property of their fathers, husbands and other male relatives, and subject to the absolute control and authority of men, who used - and still use - male violence and threats of male violence to keep girls and women "in our place" and under the thumb of males.
Today, the extreme trans activists known as the gender jihadis are using threats of violence and acts of actual violence against women - as well as the censorious finger-wagging and name-calling you use to cast scorn on women like Sharron Davies - to cow, shame and terrorize women into not voicing our concerns and objections about the misogyny, homophobia, abuse of children and unfairness to various groups now being promoted in the name of "trans rights."
But in your male supremacist view, gender-grifting misogynist men who ridicule and debase women and girls like Dylan Mulvaney are all poor, marginalized, oppressed, sainted victims behaving heroically and bravely - whilst women like me and Sharron Davies who speak up on behalf of fairness, justice and consideration for female people are the baddies who've "crossed the line," have "lost our minds" and are "plain nasty."
Very sad really… A company started by risk takers in the category of innovative products for athletes. Specifically track athletes in the beginnings. The company had ideas around making better products. They were hell bent on that? They were athletic customer focused, technology focused, cutting edge product design focused. With that came a following that wanted Nike products all of which grew Nike to become the biggest brand in sports gear and perhaps the most recognized brand in the world.
Now Nike is headed up by mass marketers, merchandisers, accountants, hangers on that manage by consensus. Nike has lost its edge and advantage. Edgy is not the inner city grunge wear Nike was producing up until recently. Edgy is not embracing the “flavor” of the month. Leading is not having a social media influencer promote a product (sports bra) that isn’t an article of clothing necessary to perform a function for that person.
Phil Knight - you are still alive - you and a handful of innovators made Nike great no matter what. No matter what you wanted to be great in what you did. Quickly, in the past 5 years, you are loosing the essence of the company you help create 51 years ago and it has to do with hires at the top and bad decisions.
Phil Knight is just another greedy multi-billionaire. Nike is a global corporation that never had serious qualms about outsourcing and sweatshop labor. It has been corrupting USATF for decades and stunting the sport of track and field. It supports numerous dopers and their dirty coaches. It exists to make money at all costs, and that's about all. This 'trans' nonsense is but another sad footnote in an already sordid history.
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.
The blackface comparison is entirely apt.
Blackface and minstrel shows were done by members of the dominant group who held the power and set the rules in society (white people, mainly white men) to ridicule, demean and punch down on the the group they historically dominated, mistreated, dehumanized, deprived of civil and human rights, physically abused, trafficked and enslaved (black people).
Womanface and Dylan Mulvaney's "Days of Girlhood" gender grift are being done by members of the dominant group who have always held the power and set the rules in nearly all the world's societies (men) to ridicule, demean and punch down on the group males throughout history and across cultures have dominated, mistreated, dehumanized, deprived of civil and human rights, physically abused, trafficked and enslaved (women and girls).
During slavery in the US, black people were the property of their white "owners," and blacks were subject to the absolute control and authority of whites, who used violence and threats of violence to keep black people "in their place" and under the thumb of whites.
Through most of history, female people have been the property of their fathers, husbands and other male relatives, and subject to the absolute control and authority of men, who used - and still use - male violence and threats of male violence to keep girls and women "in our place" and under the thumb of males.
Today, the extreme trans activists known as the gender jihadis are using threats of violence and acts of actual violence against women - as well as the censorious finger-wagging and name-calling you use to cast scorn on women like Sharron Davies - to cow, shame and terrorize women into not voicing our concerns and objections about the misogyny, homophobia, abuse of children and unfairness to various groups now being promoted in the name of "trans rights."
But in your male supremacist view, gender-grifting misogynist men who ridicule and debase women and girls like Dylan Mulvaney are all poor, marginalized, oppressed, sainted victims behaving heroically and bravely - whilst women like me and Sharron Davies who speak up on behalf of fairness, justice and consideration for female people are the baddies who've "crossed the line," have "lost our minds" and are "plain nasty."
You write about racism and then use a phrase like "gender jihadis", a phrase with obvious racist overtones.
I stand by all those words. Sharron Davies is being plain nasty. You didn't answer my question about which other trans people would be acceptable ambassadors. I think you would treat all trans women working for Nike in the same way.
So called liberal opponents of trans rights like Davies or JK Rowling will be embarrassed by their own views in 20 years. Once the pendulum swings back in favor of acceptance, they will try and weasel their way back and forget the extent they hated this group of people.
Why is this such a huge deal? It's a very infinitesimal percentage of the population that undergo gender reassignment therapy and surgery. There are no mandates for insurance carriers or broadly accessible government programs to pay for the procedures. Those choosing to do this face a lifetime of fear, ridicule, isolation, and possible violence for doing so.
It is strange and unsettling for some people. This is the only reason that the Republicans even give any attention to it. It is a distraction from the fact that the GOP possess no real ideas or policy positions that resonate with the majority of the population. Fear and division are the only things that they can successfully run on. I'd bet that the vast majority of Americans have never met a transgendered person nor have attended a drag show. No one is forcing you to. If it is your thing, then America gives you the freedom to do so.
There are only three reasons why you would fear transgendered people:
You are ignorant and bigoted.
You are easily frightened and thought controlled.
You are closeted, self-loathing, and ashamed of your repressed sexual desires.
Why is this such a huge deal? It's a very infinitesimal percentage of the population that undergo gender reassignment therapy and surgery. There are no mandates for insurance carriers or broadly accessible government programs to pay for the procedures. Those choosing to do this face a lifetime of fear, ridicule, isolation, and possible violence for doing so.
It is strange and unsettling for some people. This is the only reason that the Republicans even give any attention to it. It is a distraction from the fact that the GOP possess no real ideas or policy positions that resonate with the majority of the population. Fear and division are the only things that they can successfully run on. I'd bet that the vast majority of Americans have never met a transgendered person nor have attended a drag show. No one is forcing you to. If it is your thing, then America gives you the freedom to do so.
There are only three reasons why you would fear transgendered people:
You are ignorant and bigoted.
You are easily frightened and thought controlled.
You are closeted, self-loathing, and ashamed of your repressed sexual desires.
Friends, it's the motte and bailey tactic again. When you go after trans ideology for science denialism and female erasure, they'll accuse you of being afraid of people with gender dysphoria, claiming that only a tiny number of people suffer from this terrible affliction. This is the defensive posture, the motte.
When you give them an inch, they'll strut about making wild claims like sex is a spectrum, the binary is assigned at birth, transwomen can't have male advantage because they're female, etc (bailey position). This is the real project of trans ideology, the deconstructive one. If you go after these wild claims, they'll high tail it back to the motte and say you're crazy, eg. "nobody is saying males and females don't exist," or, "nobody is attacking your lifestyle, you stupid hicks," when this is exactly what they are saying and doing.
Blackface and minstrel shows were done by members of the dominant group who held the power and set the rules in society (white people, mainly white men) to ridicule, demean and punch down on the the group they historically dominated, mistreated, dehumanized, deprived of civil and human rights, physically abused, trafficked and enslaved (black people).
Womanface and Dylan Mulvaney's "Days of Girlhood" gender grift are being done by members of the dominant group who have always held the power and set the rules in nearly all the world's societies (men) to ridicule, demean and punch down on the group males throughout history and across cultures have dominated, mistreated, dehumanized, deprived of civil and human rights, physically abused, trafficked and enslaved (women and girls).
During slavery in the US, black people were the property of their white "owners," and blacks were subject to the absolute control and authority of whites, who used violence and threats of violence to keep black people "in their place" and under the thumb of whites.
Through most of history, female people have been the property of their fathers, husbands and other male relatives, and subject to the absolute control and authority of men, who used - and still use - male violence and threats of male violence to keep girls and women "in our place" and under the thumb of males.
Today, the extreme trans activists known as the gender jihadis are using threats of violence and acts of actual violence against women - as well as the censorious finger-wagging and name-calling you use to cast scorn on women like Sharron Davies - to cow, shame and terrorize women into not voicing our concerns and objections about the misogyny, homophobia, abuse of children and unfairness to various groups now being promoted in the name of "trans rights."
But in your male supremacist view, gender-grifting misogynist men who ridicule and debase women and girls like Dylan Mulvaney are all poor, marginalized, oppressed, sainted victims behaving heroically and bravely - whilst women like me and Sharron Davies who speak up on behalf of fairness, justice and consideration for female people are the baddies who've "crossed the line," have "lost our minds" and are "plain nasty."
You write about racism and then use a phrase like "gender jihadis", a phrase with obvious racist overtones.
I stand by all those words. Sharron Davies is being plain nasty. You didn't answer my question about which other trans people would be acceptable ambassadors. I think you would treat all trans women working for Nike in the same way.
So called liberal opponents of trans rights like Davies or JK Rowling will be embarrassed by their own views in 20 years. Once the pendulum swings back in favor of acceptance, they will try and weasel their way back and forget the extent they hated this group of people.
Jihad is an Arabic-origin word now used in many languages that means struggle - which can be an internal spiritual struggle and a peaceful struggle against self and others - as well as armed and violent struggle against those perceived to be enemies of Islam, or enemies one's own cause generally.
"Gender jihadi" is a shorthand term for today's militant, misogynistic gender-identity activists who want to make everyone in the world buckle to their will, obey their rules, agree with their views, and show allegiance to their reality-denying, totally unscientific, male-supremacist, faith-based ideology - an ideology that is very much like a religion - and who will use lies, propaganda, manipulation, cancelling, threats of violence, actual violence and terror tactics to do so.
The activists I am speaking of are the ones who say that women who defend our rights, safety and dignity like me, Sharron Davies and JK Rowling are all evil "cxnts" who should be raped, punched, stabbed, beheaded, burnt to death, and forced to suck "girl dxck."
Islam is a religion that has adherents of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, skin colors, hair types, native languages...I personally know people who are Muslim, or were raised Muslim, who are pretty much every race, ethnicity, hue, hair type, geographic heritage, language tradition, etc imaginable. They and their families come from Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malyasia, Turkey, the Levant and North Africa, Somalia, Sudan, West Africa, Eastern Europe, the countries that once made up Yugolsavia, the former USSR...
Which race exactly am I being racist towards by using the term "gender jihad"?
If I called today's militiant trans activists "gender-identity crusaders," would you accuse me of being racist against Europeans? How about calling them "the rainbow guard" or "red guard redux" - is that racist againt Chinese people?
"Pastel stormtroopers" and "Butler youth"- are those names racist against Germans?
What about "gender terrorists"? That anodyne enough for you?
As for your question about which trans-identified people would make good brand ambassadors for Nike: I don't know, and I don't much care. Though if I had to choose someone, I'd go with Buck Angel.
But Buck shouldn't be brand ambassador not for sports bras, because Buck's breasts were surgically removed decades ago. Similarly, it would be inappropriate if Buck were made brand ambassador for erectile dysfunction medications or did PSAs about prostate cancer.
In your rush to mount your high horse and slag off women like Sharron Davies, JK Rowling and me as "plain nasty" - and now as haters and weasels too - you fail to notice that women like Sharron Davies and I are not objecting to trans-identified people being brand ambassadors for Nike in general or other products. Davies and I aren't up in arms about Mulvaney shilling for Budweiser, for example.
Women - the female kind - and the men who support us are objecting to the specific instance in which Dylan Mulvaney, a MAN - and a MAN who makes his living mocking women and girls - has been made a paid brand ambassador speficially for Nike sports bras and leggings that are supposed to be designed to meet the unique bodily needs of female people. (We object to Mulvaney and his creepy friend Jeffrey Marsh doing paid promotions for Tampax and other menstrual products too.)
If Dylan Mulvaney were a brand ambassador for generic products not specific to the female sex - corn flakes or mouth wash, say - I'd have no problem with it. Just as I'd have no problem with Mulvaney shilling for Nike men's wear, Bike jock straps, Shock Doctor athletic cups, Adidas groin guards, Under Armor Boxerjocks, Calvin Klein men's briefs, Trojan condoms, Gold Bond Men's Essentials, Happy Nuts anti-ball-sweat chafing powder, Pete & Pedro's Body & Balls powder, Fresh Balls lotion, and so on, I'd have no problem with it.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Why is this such a huge deal? It's a very infinitesimal percentage of the population that undergo gender reassignment therapy and surgery. There are no mandates for insurance carriers or broadly accessible government programs to pay for the procedures. Those choosing to do this face a lifetime of fear, ridicule, isolation, and possible violence for doing so.
It is strange and unsettling for some people. This is the only reason that the Republicans even give any attention to it. It is a distraction from the fact that the GOP possess no real ideas or policy positions that resonate with the majority of the population. Fear and division are the only things that they can successfully run on. I'd bet that the vast majority of Americans have never met a transgendered person nor have attended a drag show. No one is forcing you to. If it is your thing, then America gives you the freedom to do so.
There are only three reasons why you would fear transgendered people:
You are ignorant and bigoted.
You are easily frightened and thought controlled.
You are closeted, self-loathing, and ashamed of your repressed sexual desires.
Friends, it's the motte and bailey tactic again. When you go after trans ideology for science denialism and female erasure, they'll accuse you of being afraid of people with gender dysphoria, claiming that only a tiny number of people suffer from this terrible affliction. This is the defensive posture, the motte.
When you give them an inch, they'll strut about making wild claims like sex is a spectrum, the binary is assigned at birth, transwomen can't have male advantage because they're female, etc (bailey position). This is the real project of trans ideology, the deconstructive one. If you go after these wild claims, they'll high tail it back to the motte and say you're crazy, eg. "nobody is saying males and females don't exist," or, "nobody is attacking your lifestyle, you stupid hicks," when this is exactly what they are saying and doing.
Word games. That's all.
Well said. Word games is all critical theorists (progressives, wokesters, SJWs, pick the word you're most comfortable with) have. The motte and bailey game is probably their absolute top favorite, though of course they have many. Overstatement is another ("saying we can't put boys who aren't even on hormone pills into girls sports is LITERALLY GENOCIDE") and redefinition is another big one (using "racism" only for a very specific academia-originated privileged-upon-oppressed meaning but then saying "only white people can be racist" knowing that the average person still thinks "racism" just means "discriminatory based upon race.")
Very sad really… A company started by risk takers in the category of innovative products for athletes. Specifically track athletes in the beginnings. The company had ideas around making better products. They were hell bent on that? They were athletic customer focused, technology focused, cutting edge product design focused. With that came a following that wanted Nike products all of which grew Nike to become the biggest brand in sports gear and perhaps the most recognized brand in the world.
Now Nike is headed up by mass marketers, merchandisers, accountants, hangers on that manage by consensus. Nike has lost its edge and advantage. Edgy is not the inner city grunge wear Nike was producing up until recently. Edgy is not embracing the “flavor” of the month. Leading is not having a social media influencer promote a product (sports bra) that isn’t an article of clothing necessary to perform a function for that person.
Phil Knight - you are still alive - you and a handful of innovators made Nike great no matter what. No matter what you wanted to be great in what you did. Quickly, in the past 5 years, you are loosing the essence of the company you help create 51 years ago and it has to do with hires at the top and bad decisions.
Went backwards when they couldn't have little kids sew their Soccer Balls anymore.
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?
I'd recommend Asics and Adidas.
The Asics Novablast 3 are mint; likewise the the Metasky Speed for the quicker stuff.
From Adidas there's the Solarglide or Ultraboost for easy days and the Adios Pro or Takumi Sen for the fast stuff. The Sens are better than anything else I've ever used over 5/10km. For spikes, the Adidas Avanti is brilliant - have used both track and XC. Added bonus, Adidas shoes seem to last longer than Nike stuff in my experience. Plus they are not Nike!
Re: Nike. I've refused to buy any of their stuff for years. Their attitude for years has been to claim to be all about the sport, but the truth is that they're all about the money and winning at all costs. Nothing else matters.
The last straw has been their support for Salazar and Burrito Girl. As far as I am concerned they are nothing other than bad for the sport these days. Bad, bad, bad.
For years and years Nike has supported drug dopers (Lance, Marion Jones, U.S. Postal) and never had a great program for their elite female runners (Fleshman, Felix, Cain, Salazar as coach) and NOW all of a sudden folks are righteously upset at Nike because they support trans rights?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you're looking for a reason to boycott Nike, that party began a good 20+ years ago.
Some people are HEATED about this lol. A private company endorsed an influencer to reach a new target market. Who cares? I try to avoid posting on these threads but Nike is not out here trying to erase gender. They sell Men’s and Women’s products on their site, nothing is changing. Let someone do what they want if it doesn’t hurt anybody else, go outside and touch some grass people.
You write about racism and then use a phrase like "gender jihadis", a phrase with obvious racist overtones.
I stand by all those words. Sharron Davies is being plain nasty. You didn't answer my question about which other trans people would be acceptable ambassadors. I think you would treat all trans women working for Nike in the same way.
So called liberal opponents of trans rights like Davies or JK Rowling will be embarrassed by their own views in 20 years. Once the pendulum swings back in favor of acceptance, they will try and weasel their way back and forget the extent they hated this group of people.
Jihad is an Arabic-origin word now used in many languages that means struggle - which can be an internal spiritual struggle and a peaceful struggle against self and others - as well as armed and violent struggle against those perceived to be enemies of Islam, or enemies one's own cause generally.
"Gender jihadi" is a shorthand term for today's militant, misogynistic gender-identity activists who want to make everyone in the world buckle to their will, obey their rules, agree with their views, and show allegiance to their reality-denying, totally unscientific, male-supremacist, faith-based ideology - an ideology that is very much like a religion - and who will use lies, propaganda, manipulation, cancelling, threats of violence, actual violence and terror tactics to do so.
The activists I am speaking of are the ones who say that women who defend our rights, safety and dignity like me, Sharron Davies and JK Rowling are all evil "cxnts" who should be raped, punched, stabbed, beheaded, burnt to death, and forced to suck "girl dxck."
Islam is a religion that has adherents of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, skin colors, hair types, native languages...I personally know people who are Muslim, or were raised Muslim, who are pretty much every race, ethnicity, hue, hair type, geographic heritage, language tradition, etc imaginable. They and their families come from Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malyasia, Turkey, the Levant and North Africa, Somalia, Sudan, West Africa, Eastern Europe, the countries that once made up Yugolsavia, the former USSR...
Which race exactly am I being racist towards by using the term "gender jihad"?
If I called today's militiant trans activists "gender-identity crusaders," would you accuse me of being racist against Europeans? How about calling them "the rainbow guard" or "red guard redux" - is that racist againt Chinese people?
"Pastel stormtroopers" and "Butler youth"- are those names racist against Germans?
What about "gender terrorists"? That anodyne enough for you?
As for your question about which trans-identified people would make good brand ambassadors for Nike: I don't know, and I don't much care. Though if I had to choose someone, I'd go with Buck Angel.
But Buck shouldn't be brand ambassador not for sports bras, because Buck's breasts were surgically removed decades ago. Similarly, it would be inappropriate if Buck were made brand ambassador for erectile dysfunction medications or did PSAs about prostate cancer.
In your rush to mount your high horse and slag off women like Sharron Davies, JK Rowling and me as "plain nasty" - and now as haters and weasels too - you fail to notice that women like Sharron Davies and I are not objecting to trans-identified people being brand ambassadors for Nike in general or other products. Davies and I aren't up in arms about Mulvaney shilling for Budweiser, for example.
Women - the female kind - and the men who support us are objecting to the specific instance in which Dylan Mulvaney, a MAN - and a MAN who makes his living mocking women and girls - has been made a paid brand ambassador speficially for Nike sports bras and leggings that are supposed to be designed to meet the unique bodily needs of female people. (We object to Mulvaney and his creepy friend Jeffrey Marsh doing paid promotions for Tampax and other menstrual products too.)
If Dylan Mulvaney were a brand ambassador for generic products not specific to the female sex - corn flakes or mouth wash, say - I'd have no problem with it. Just as I'd have no problem with Mulvaney shilling for Nike men's wear, Bike jock straps, Shock Doctor athletic cups, Adidas groin guards, Under Armor Boxerjocks, Calvin Klein men's briefs, Trojan condoms, Gold Bond Men's Essentials, Happy Nuts anti-ball-sweat chafing powder, Pete & Pedro's Body & Balls powder, Fresh Balls lotion, and so on, I'd have no problem with it.
As you well know, jihad is a contentious phrase associated with islam. It has entered western consciousness erroneously to mean islamic extremism. As you've explained you've plucked the word to mean exactly this.
I don't want to go into this too deep but prejudice towards islam is inextricably tied up with race. Ask any sikh or hindu how many times they've been abused because a person has assumed they are muslim. To a racist, islam is just the most notable 'brown religion'.
There's another thread on here about Bud Light employing Mulvaney. Kid Rock shot up a pack of beer because of it. What's the difference? You think one is more principled than the other? It sounds like you're on a high horse thinking you are better than the people arguing for the EXACT same thing as you.
You didn't answer my question about which other trans people would be acceptable ambassadors. I think you would treat all trans women working for Nike in the same way.
Trans models in ad for women's clothes are nothing new. I wonder why there is no call for boycott of Dior, L'Oreal, H&M, Moschino, Prada, Gucci, Calvin Klein, Versus Versace, among others.
Okay, most LRC keyboard warriors have no interest in those brands. How about Gap? Does anyone want to boycott them?
