Unless its changed (very likely has, I haven't heard anything of it for a long time so im probably out of the loop) but the only place i can remember allowing one to change all legal documentation to a different gender is California and even then you'd still have to list your sex on medial documentation because of the health differences that entails.
And a bra is a practical item- the emotional and mental image that defines the brand of Victoria secret isn’t based on quantifiable points, it’s based on making people feel a certain way about their product, and using it. Victoria secret wants women to feel positive about themselves, just as Air Jordans won’t make you grow muscles or height or play better, Victoria secret products won’t make you an intercontinental woman of adventure, a sex symbol, etc. it’s supposed to make you FEEL a little closer though, to bring confidence and pride, to make you feel sexy, or secure, etc. and “plus sized” women have these feelings too. “Plus sized women” can be sexy, and many men and women think they are many have “plus sized partners” they are just as happy to see in their skimpies as a man dating one of these models is. So the NBA isn’t the same thing. The NBA is a sport, modeling is about emotion- and if Victoria secret can make products and take money from “plus sized” women then they can model
"and if Victoria secret can make products and take money from “plus sized” women then they can model"
This statement is completely meaningless. It's a company, they can hire whomever they want. On a related note, have you ever wonder why you NEVER see any SJWs running or owning companies larger than a trendy coffee shop ? Seriously, think about that for a second....
Because business is all about one thing, and that is making a profit at the expense of everything else. There are no morals in business, which is why most liberally inclined people who do start businesses create what's called a triple bottom line, where each bottom line is just as important as the last. They can be profit, environmental impact, social justice, any number of things.
There’s actually a lot of them. Google, Microsoft, warren Buffet had a heck of a media empire, Bloomberg, there are more filthy rich liberals that you’d realize. Uber, Apple,Samsung, BCBS, Ben and Jerrys, YouTube, Coca Cola
Apple components are manufactured in a facility that had to install a net to stop people from committing suicide, Coke routinely buys indigenous water sources then reroutes them to bottle Dasani. All big business uses exploitation, and the owners know this. They can pretend all they want that they're woke t-shirt wearing normal folks, but being a billionaire changes people.
You misunderstood. I know there are a ton of liberal billionaires. I'm sure definitions vary, but i dont believe liberals and SJWs are the same. I do think every rich Democrat is a walking hypocrisy though. They want open boarders for the country but live in fenced communities. "Anti Gun" but employ armed guards. The entire Democratic system is completely reliant on a permanent poor class of government dependent poor people, but thats a whole other topic.
.
@pripyatplatypus, i don't disagree that businesses exist to make money, why else would anyone take the risk. I wholly disagree though that it's at the expense of everything else. Businesses can really only survive and thrive if they enrich the other stakeholders (employees, share holders, customers). If any of those 3 dont get what they need from the business....
thats becoming less and less true as time goes by. The majority of the population is slowly getting more and more willing to roll over and accept getting fleeced.
Sorry guys, you might not want to admit that liberal companies are greedy polluters, but they are. This site ranks companies based on their politics, 1 is way left, 5 is way right. Most of that list came from here. https://www.2ndvote.com/company-scores/
Youtube censors basically anything political that isnt made by their poster children. It's bad for their money as advertisers don't want to be associated with it.
Hmm... well, according to princessmonstertru’s logic on capitalism- that means YouTube just won’t survive, or that it’s somehow beneficial to all people to do so. “greed may start a company, but it will only survive if it is equitable to all.” Like Coca-Cola- look what happened to them? After almost a century of business practices so stilted that corporate assasins and murder gangs needed used on workers and work leaders, after taking massive amounts of clean water and leaving almost none for locals- they crum... oh? Still one of the biggest companies in the world. Oh. Well... what about railroad monopolies and steel... oh. They had to be shut down by the government and things like indentured slave labor cities were outlawed. Huh. But many of those companies live on... well... the airlines and automakers who... oh. Nah. They were saved by the government. Well.... surely I can think of some example to support this logic beyond a moral cry of emotion. Well.... it’s still true!
If we could travel forward in time, 10,000, 10 billion years... eventually we would come to a time when statistically these inequitable companies would not survive. Probably. So yeah. At some time before the death of the universe all inequitable companies won’t survive- but that’s true of basically everything in existence... It’s a self evident truth that politics and companies come and go for all manner of reasons. Something that is not equivalent exchange to all will eventually lead to exhaustion of resources. That’s just nature. If one creatures eats everything, eventually the things it eats will have nothing to eat, the things that’s eat those things and so on. That’s the nature of much of the push we have to sustainable industry and living- and it’s true in economics as well- but economics is imaginary. We create it. We can create sources of income, debt, credit- with a thought. When we strip all that what is left is simply the need for raw materials, labor to process and...
... produce, and the knowledge of how to produce the results you want. If there were 5 people in the world, and one had 6 armed robots and a gun, and the other 4 were unarmed scientists and laborers- the one with the control could make the other 4 produce everythinthey need, and do no work save to monitor they weren’t revolting. They would have the ability to easily crush most revolts, and once we have a suffuceinwt automated base of labor, you don’t actually even need the human labor component. Without robots- that’s human history for the most part. An elite fee controlling the masses to produce for thegreayer benefit of the few and the lesser benefit of the masses. From Feudalism and serfdom on and back, you’ll primarily find a privileged few benefiting from the labor of the many inequitably. So no- that is patently and demonstratively false. An inequitable company will function so long as it possesss the power to keep a labor force to produce what it needs to exchange.
@princessmonstertru- and your earlier comments to mine about how it makes no sense that I say Victoria secret can gladly accept money from plus sized people without acknowledging or accepting them? Your own hypocritical ass contradicts yourself. Maybe you’re a democrat and don’t know it yet? If it’s hypocracy to advocate open borders but live in gated communities, but it’s not to be willing to do business with a group but be unwilling to acknowledge it? Companies that are inequitable in what they take versus what they give back are doomed to failure, but a company that gives inequitable recognition and representation or emplpyment to a group of their own customers somehow is exempt? I’ve read through this chain and it’s not even a conversation. You just seem to have some well rehearsed shower thoughts you wanted to put to an audience, it’s like you’re following a script regardless of whatever else is said.
You brought up corporate welfare. A powerful tool employed by Andrew Cuomo and BHO among others. GM should have been allowed to die. Honda, VW, and Ford were the three strongest automakers standing and had made the right decisions for years. They were all bout to gain huge market share when a dozen other companies failed. GM, Chrysler, Mazda, Daewoo, Toyota and others were struggling to get credit. Had the weak fallen the stronger would have gained thousands of employees in dozens of factories to fill the void. Our government gave GM billions of our dollars in exchange for a large stake in the company, that stake was later given to the UAW. That’s crony capitalism at its worst. The stock I held in GM was worthless and my tax dollars went to the bailout. Now Cuomo is giving millions to Bezos’ Amazon to locate a shipping center near NYC. The rest of us don’t benefit at all, but we sure funded it. My tax dollars are repeatedly being used to purchase loyalty for abhorrent candidates.
Yes. Exactly. Which goes against the statement that companies that are inequitable in who they benefit perish. One may say they SHOULD perish, but if one says it is a fact, that is incorrect in any way other than speaking in an absolute sense that alltjings perish in time. So... you’re proginal statement I was refuting- inequitable companies do just fine for themselves, so long as they can find new streams of revenue or continue to exploit or abuse things for their gain, they do just fine.
A trans woman is a born male who identifies as a woman. A trans man is a born female who identified as a man. Took me a while to get them straight myself when I first heard of them.
Businesses don't give a damn about your feelings unless it has a huge impact on their income
VS doesn't want anything else but slim women and it's their choices, be upset as you want, people will still buy VS products
yeah, they don't want to hire men
it doesn't matter what kind of surgery you get through the course of your life if you were born a man you're always a man.
Maybe, though there's research that shows that a trans person's brain is closer to that of the gender they identify with. That and there's been medical procedures proposed that could change that.
look, the way someones brain functions and any medical procedures can't change the XY composition you had at birth. different peoples brains act differently because of the way there brain works, but that doesn't affect your gender.
Though a lot of the research on biological sex and its correlation to gender shows it more or less as a gray area, so it's best to keep an open mind for now.
plenty of studies show that vacines are ineffective too
just because a scientist says something because they want people ot believe them doesn't mean they're right.
gender is a cultural thing. A machination of society. Sex is a biological thing that isn't even the binary system that all the transphobes with barely a high school understanding of biology try to use as the basis for their argument.
It's an entirely human thing to have genders. Different cultures have different sets of genders. Many native tribes had 3 genders. Ancient greece had multiple genders and had transgender individuals. Italy had 3 genders in its culture. It's almost entirely a European thing to not traditionally have more than 2 genders.
no it's an entirely SCIENTIFIC thing to have only 2 genders
the article above simply stated that sex is biology and that gender is made up of different feminine and masculine traits
in actuality sex is gender, their both biology and traits make up personality, as it's perfectly normal for a man to act more feminine and a woman more masculine but that doesn't make them the opposite gender and that make gender a social construct that's apart from sex.
As for your statement on the different genders in different cultures, after some research, those just seem to be people who thought "I don't feel like the man that society set before me" a started identifying as something entirely different, even though i would argue that they were just those men who felt more feminine that I mentioned earlier.
you have no sources to back up your claims, you (with no sources nor credentials to do so) say that the sources you have been given are wrong, you talk about research but give no sources as to that research and then make wild assumptions as to how something works.
Please go learn how to construct an argument.
"science and ben shapiro"
then prove it. give sources. Your brain isn't a source. The things you think you know about science and the interpretation of that is not a source.
"science and Ben Sharpie" hahahahahaha well that's your first mistake because Sharpie doesn't even understand the science. Hun, you DON'T know what you're saying.
Sex is determined by the SRY gene. The SRY gene is a gene that initiates the transformation into male genitalia and it binds the Y chromosome, meaning that it only binds with your chromosomes of you're XY or XYY or other combinations containing Y. However, it doesn't always bind, meaning there are women with XY chromosomes whose SRY gene failed to bind.
Ben's argument is "your pronouns reflect your chromosomes" but just this case already, or the cases like XYY, XXX, XXY and so on prove him wrong. Should there be separate pronouns for every combination? No, that's bs. Also, the scientific discipline of genetics was invented long after pronouns in language. Humans have for millennia been using pronouns based on what you look and act like, not their genes. So why can't we call trans women she since they look and act like women?
Basically sex is a lot more complicated than pundits like Shapiro, who pretend to base their argument on science, can even fathom.
And gender is a social construct that I'm frankly all for abolishing.
using someone whose degree is in law as a source for biological and psychological arguments (without even sourcing the source i might add) no matter who it is would tend to be a bit daft.
I had this conversation on another post already. If they don't want obese people, I don't blame them, obesity is neither healthy not attractive. But most models have a BMI of 16-17, aka extremely malnourished, and that's not healthy (or for that matter, attractive - at least without the tons of makeup and Photoshop they have on them) either.
So yes I'm 100% for changing that so that actual healthy weight people can be models, because pushing the standard that malnourished = beautiful is just a shitty thing to do, no wonder impressionable teens develop eating disorders because of this.
Eh, oh, aye- I used to have a BMI of 11-12. I was not malnourished, I was a runner that ate 5000 calories a day and trained hard. Then the alcohol happened.
Wait, shouldn't feminists be happy Victoria's Secret is rejecting trans women? Wouldn't accepting them exclusively mean that men are becoming better at being women models than women are?
.
This world is confusing.
Yeah they're a fringe group obsessed with hating trans women because a) they don't experience the same oppression by "the patriarchy" (even though trans ppl usually get the most shit and hate), b) they don't "bleed". Yes, the TERFs are fucking obsessed with periods and how trans women can never be women because they don't have the ultimate symbol of female victimhood - the blood. They also believe that trans women transition just because they want to infiltrate women's lockers and mass rape everyone.
Crazy people really but as far as I know from some of my feminist friends, most feminists deeply resent these crazies.
This statement is completely meaningless. It's a company, they can hire whomever they want. On a related note, have you ever wonder why you NEVER see any SJWs running or owning companies larger than a trendy coffee shop ? Seriously, think about that for a second....
.
@pripyatplatypus, i don't disagree that businesses exist to make money, why else would anyone take the risk. I wholly disagree though that it's at the expense of everything else. Businesses can really only survive and thrive if they enrich the other stakeholders (employees, share holders, customers). If any of those 3 dont get what they need from the business....
VS doesn't want anything else but slim women and it's their choices, be upset as you want, people will still buy VS products
edit:*they're
so i was right the first time
it doesn't matter what kind of surgery you get through the course of your life if you were born a man you're always a man.
they are litterally the exact same thing.
just because a scientist says something because they want people ot believe them doesn't mean they're right.
*inserts india's third gender*
*inserts ancient Greece's third gender*
This article does a good enough job explaining it.
the article above simply stated that sex is biology and that gender is made up of different feminine and masculine traits
in actuality sex is gender, their both biology and traits make up personality, as it's perfectly normal for a man to act more feminine and a woman more masculine but that doesn't make them the opposite gender and that make gender a social construct that's apart from sex.
As for your statement on the different genders in different cultures, after some research, those just seem to be people who thought "I don't feel like the man that society set before me" a started identifying as something entirely different, even though i would argue that they were just those men who felt more feminine that I mentioned earlier.
Please go learn how to construct an argument.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysiol.00376.2005
then prove it. give sources. Your brain isn't a source. The things you think you know about science and the interpretation of that is not a source.
Sex is determined by the SRY gene. The SRY gene is a gene that initiates the transformation into male genitalia and it binds the Y chromosome, meaning that it only binds with your chromosomes of you're XY or XYY or other combinations containing Y. However, it doesn't always bind, meaning there are women with XY chromosomes whose SRY gene failed to bind.
Ben's argument is "your pronouns reflect your chromosomes" but just this case already, or the cases like XYY, XXX, XXY and so on prove him wrong. Should there be separate pronouns for every combination? No, that's bs. Also, the scientific discipline of genetics was invented long after pronouns in language. Humans have for millennia been using pronouns based on what you look and act like, not their genes. So why can't we call trans women she since they look and act like women?
And gender is a social construct that I'm frankly all for abolishing.
Especially since Ben's arguments don't even agree with today's biology and psychology.
So yes I'm 100% for changing that so that actual healthy weight people can be models, because pushing the standard that malnourished = beautiful is just a shitty thing to do, no wonder impressionable teens develop eating disorders because of this.
.
This world is confusing.
Crazy people really but as far as I know from some of my feminist friends, most feminists deeply resent these crazies.