So real men don't drink Bud Light?

[filghy2]

I see the latest cause among transphobic right-wing wackos is to boycott Bud Light because a transgender influencer was involved in one of their promotional campaigns. Presumably, these are the same people who complain about cancel culture.
https://www.vox.com/money/2023/4/12/23680135/bud-light-boycott-dylan-mulvaney-travis-tritt-trans

And what does any self-respecting right-wing wacko do when sees something he doesn't like? That's right, he get out his automatic weapon and shoots it up.
https://www.newsweek.com/kid-rock-mocked-photo-drinking-bud-light-drag-queen-1793067

Of course, if these people were real beer lovers they would not be drinking Bud Light in the first place.

[Murmdrum]

No one with taste buds drank bud light looooong before this foolishness lol

[mildcigar_2001]

I think this is the canary in the coal mine moment that those helping push the radical transsexual agenda should pay attention to, or hurt the cause they are trying to help.

Regular folks are sick of Dylan Mulvaney being pushed down our collective throats. It is beyond me why (other than misguided wokeness), that someone thought it would be a good idea to have Dylan celebrated on a beer can.

Dylan and his noxious "Days of Girlhood" are particularly cringe. It doesn't set well with most of us when an adult tries to pretend to be an adolescent or pre-adolescent. And before I get labeled as transphobic, I have a similar reaction to Peewee Herman.

The above marketing faux pas combined with the recent push to normalize transsexuals in Women's sports and Drag queen story hours, are helping create a backlash against trans folks that just want to live their lives.

The transsexual community would be ahead in the long-term to dial things back a bit.

Just my 2 cents.

[Fitzcarraldo]

How is Dylan Mulvaney being pushed down anyone's throat? I've only seen the controversy over this campaign. I haven't seen one of the ads. It's a fucking commercial, anyway. How does that have a major impact on anyone's life? No one is compelled to buy Bud Light.

[Stavros]

As a wine and whisky drinker, I don't know if Bud Light is any better or worse than its original version, but then I am not sure how to define what a 'Real Man' is either. At one time, probably the 1950s, it would have been 'He Man', which only complicates the implosion of nouns and pronouns, and that is before we get into the TRANSitive verbs and inTRANSitive verbs.

Funny old world, innit?

[mildcigar_2001]

How is Dylan Mulvaney being pushed down anyone's throat? I've only seen the controversy over this campaign. I haven't seen one of the ads. It's a fucking commercial, anyway. How does that have a major impact on anyone's life? No one is compelled to buy Bud Light.

As you can probably guess that as a many year member of the HA forum, I'm generally sympathetic towards transgender issues. I've only known about Dylan for a month or two, and even being attracted to MTfs, I think he is cringe.

Dylan (and I personally wish her the best) in being awarded advertising contracts where she alienates customers is actually being exploited in pursuit of the woke agenda.

I forecast rocky shoals ahead for Dylan personally. Monetarily she may come out ahead, but mental health wise I assume she comes out on the losing end. In the long term, I think a more low key transition might have been best.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Dylan (and I personally wish her the best) in being awarded advertising contracts where she alienates customers is actually being exploited in pursuit of the woke agenda.


Spoken like one who truly wishes another the best.

[broncofan]

As you can probably guess that as a many year member of the HA forum, I'm generally sympathetic towards transgender issues. I've only known about Dylan for a month or two, and even being attracted to MTfs, I think he is cringe.

As you probably know the people who agree with you are not sympathetic to transgender issues and use violent and dehumanizing language when talking about transgender people. The fact that you think a transgender woman advertising a beer brand is reason to boycott the brand makes you cringe. I'll give you this. It takes some balls to post on a transgender forum and weigh in on behalf of people who openly hate the people you claim to be "sympathetic" to.

Do you think the people leading this boycott object to Dylan bc of where Dylan is in her transition or because they are offended that a transgender woman is given any publicity at all? If you think it's the former you're exactly as dumb as I think you are.

[mildcigar_2001]

As I think I said in my earlier in this thread, Dylan has been cringe to me because of his Days of Girlhood persona. It's creepy to me that an adult is trying to portray an adolescent girl.

It also doesn't help that he doesn't appear to be very far along in his transition (the hormones [if he is taking any] don't appear to have kicked in yet.

As for people objecting to Dylan, I don't think a majority of them hate trans folks. I think most definitely don't like the radical trans agenda (and that I agree on them with).

As for having the balls to post on a forum such as HA. I guess I grew up in a time when even Liberals weren't afraid of an open discussion of the issues of the day.

Transsexuals as a group would be far better off if their radical fringe dialed things back. If they don't, I think there likely will be a very serious backlash. This will be far beyond a beer boycott.


It would be interesting to get some off the record views that the average TS has of things like Drag Queen story hours. I think it would have to be off the record, or they would get pounded by the radical elements of the TS community. God forbid if anyone departs from the orthodoxy.

[broncofan]

As for people objecting to Dylan, I don't think a majority of them hate trans folks. I think most definitely don't like the radical trans agenda (and that I agree on them with).

As for having the balls to post on a forum such as HA. I guess I grew up in a time when even Liberals weren't afraid of an open discussion of the issues of the day.

Transsexuals as a group would be far better off if their radical fringe dialed things back. If they don't, I think there likely will be a very serious backlash. This will be far beyond a beer boycott.


You said "I don't think a majority of them hate trans folks." Yet here they are boycotting a beer brand not because of anything controversial but because a transsexual is part of a promotional campaign. That's it. I've also seen what many of them have to say about transgender people. Horrific insinuations, scapegoating, and vilification. I don't even want to repeat the lies.

You say you don't think it should take balls to discuss these issues because liberals used to be open-minded. Yet the only issue here is whether a transgender woman should be part of a promotional campaign. That's an existential issue that concerns whether transgender people are permitted to be a part of public life. Don't be dishonest about it. I'm not claiming there's nobody who wants a legitimate discussion about any number of topics dealing with transgender women and sports, but you shouldn't try to shoehorn those issues in here.

I will also note you misgender Dylan twice and I don't really understand the backlash comments. If transgender people appear in ads there will be serious backlash? Who would be to blame for that? I think it's audacity to blame a minority group for not heeding the threats of bigoted people who insist they stay out of the public sphere.

[filghy2]

As you can probably guess that as a many year member of the HA forum, I'm generally sympathetic towards transgender issues.

Really? I can't recall a single post from you that's been supportive of trans rights. You always have the same negative line about going too far and causing a backlash. Your general view seems to be that trans should just keep their heads down and be grateful they are not being thrown into prison.

Have you even seen any advertising featuring Dylan Mulvaney, or are you just engaging in reflexive hyperventilating after seeing some story in the media? From what I've read her role with Bud Light seems to be relatively minor. If transexuals are X per cent of the population then what exactly is your objection to them participating in something like X per cent of advertising?

[filghy2]

I will also note you misgender Dylan twice and I don't really understand the backlash comments. If transgender people appear in ads there will be serious backlash? Who would be to blame for that? I think it's audacity to blame a minority group for not heeding the threats of bigoted people who insist they stay out of the public sphere.

I'm sure 60 years ago there were people saying the same about black people appearing in ads. The equivalent versions of mildcigar would have been tut-tutting about the civil rights movement going too far and risking a backlash. Has any group ever got their rights without making a fuss and putting themselves in the public eye? If they kept quiet and waited for people like mildcigar to grant them rights they would be waiting forever.

Anyone who has a visceral objection to even knowing that a trans person is being used in marketing is obviously a transphobe. The idea that this is pursuing some woke agenda is clearly predicated on the assumption that trans people should not be part of public life.

I think the right-wing obsession with the supposed scourge of wokism is starting to look like the 2020s version of the red scare of the 1950s.

[filghy2]

How is Dylan Mulvaney being pushed down anyone's throat? I've only seen the controversy over this campaign. I haven't seen one of the ads. It's a fucking commercial, anyway. How does that have a major impact on anyone's life? No one is compelled to buy Bud Light.

The irony (no doubt lost on mildcigar) is that none of the people complaining about Bud allegedly forcing a woke agenda on them would even be aware of this if the right-wing outrage machine had not picked it up. It's a bit like someone complaining about pornography after having gone looking for it.

[filghy2]

I will also note you misgender Dylan twice

He seems to be a slow learner


However, we are getting away from common sense when we started sending trannies to women's' prisons.


Keep using the word 'trannies' if you want removing from this forum - and we should all be concerned with 'trans rights'.

[Imatwork]

Anyone can now be who they want and rightly so.Its all the prancing about I don't get, to me it looks juvenile.

[mildcigar_2001]

He seems to be a slow learner
I see the Red Guards are out in full force trying to enforce uniform thought and language.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I see the Red Guards are out in full force trying to enforce uniform thought and language.

Yes, because acknowledging the right of trans people to exist is clearly communism.

[Nikka]

dylan is making success

[Del06]

So, mildcigar, what is the "radical trans agenda"? What's wrong with being "woke" -- better than being asleep, no?

[Fitzcarraldo]

I support the auto industry in general, but I don't like seeing commercials from Toyota. Sure, they have a right to exist, but their commercials go too far. They show people enjoying driving in, buying, and even selling Toyotas. Sure, I've ridden in and even driven Toyotas before, but that company should be careful. Pearl Harbor wasn't really that long ago. Toyotas shouldn't be forced on society.

[Imatwork]

Fitz,What on earth are you talking about. You are off your nut pal.

[filghy2]

As for having the balls to post on a forum such as HA. I guess I grew up in a time when even Liberals weren't afraid of an open discussion of the issues of the day.


I see the Red Guards are out in full force trying to enforce uniform thought and language.

So after complaining about Liberals refusing to engage in discussion, you now refuse to engage with any argument others have made and retreat behind this tired line?

The basic point is that you made an assertion that Dylan Mulvaney is being forced down peoples' throats, which you are obviously unable to back up. Without that your entire argument falls apart.

Your claimed sympathy for transsexuals seems dubious, given your posting history is full of negative comments about them. Do you even like or respect them as people, as opposed to sexual objects?

[filghy2]

The world according to mildcigar:

A trans person was involved in some niche marketing that few people would have seen
= Trans are being forced down peoples' throats

Some transphobes brought it to my attention by making a big deal about nothing = Trans are being forced down peoples' throats

Some businesses recognise that trans people exist = Businesses are pursuing a woke agenda

Trans people demand rights = Trans are going too far and causing a backlash

Trans people refuse to stay invisible = Trans are going too far and causing a backlash

Right-wing transphobes target trans for political reasons = See, I told you there would be a backlash

Some liberals disagreed with my dubious arguments = Liberals are intolerant of other points of view

I ran away from a debate because I had no good counterarguments = Liberals refuse to debate

[Fitzcarraldo]

Fitz,What on earth are you talking about. You are off your nut pal.

Analogy. It wasn't subtle.

[filghy2]

Yes, because acknowledging the right of trans people to exist is clearly communism.

Not being able to refer to trans people as "he" is also clearly communism. But wanting to prevent a trans person from doing promos on their own social media pages is definitely nothing like communism.

As far I can tell, that's the only place these promos appeared originally. So what these cretins are really saying is that they don't want a trans person to be forced down their throats if they happen to visit that trans person's social media pages.

[mildcigar_2001]

So after complaining about Liberals refusing to engage in discussion, you now refuse to engage with any argument others have made and retreat behind this tired line?

The basic point is that you made an assertion that Dylan Mulvaney is being forced down peoples' throats, which you are obviously unable to back up. Without that your entire argument falls apart.

Your claimed sympathy for transsexuals seems dubious, given your posting history is full of negative comments about them. Do you even like or respect them as people, as opposed to sexual objects?


I think I have general sympathy for transsexuals as a group.

I assume that having gender dysphoria is a hard row to hoe.

I think the opinions expressed by me in this forum and in public for that matter generally support the best interests of transsexual community. I'm sure a good number of my opinions go against the current trans orthodoxy, but that doesn't make me wrong or a hater of transsexuals.

The Trans community and its supporters need to think in terms of long term goals rather than short term victories (as do we all).

For example it makes little sense to me for public libraries to host drag queen story hours (we probably shouldn't be promoting overtly sexual entertainment to young children). This very easily leads to charges of grooming. I could care less if adult males want to dress up as women (I assume most of us can admit there is a sexual element at play with this behavior). Nothing particularly wrong with the behavior of crossdressing itself, but it is wrong to put minors into the mix.

In this forum I have expressed the opinion that MTF transsexuals should not compete in sports against biological woman, and predicted that there would be a backlash against the transsexual community as a whole because of the push to include MTF in women's sports.

I think it is patently obvious that Lia Thomas should never have been allowed to compete against genetic women in the NCAA (if anyone has any doubt relook at Lia on the victory stand towering over her competitors). As far as MTFs in sports there are few good options other than having a MTF division (which based on the relatively small number of trans athletes would most likely be cost prohibitive). Is this completely fair to Lia? Probably not, but it would be the fairest thing to do for the greatest number of people.

The reason I bring this example up is that ongoing backlash against trans athletes will have a negative impact on the trans community as a whole (even those who don't have an athletic bone in their body). Some people can argue against my reasoning, but I think I am giving sound long term advice that would help the trans community rather than hurt it.

This leads me to Dylan Mulvaney. I really do believe when corporations (when controlled by woke leadership) advertise with someone like Dylan it is for shock value only, and I and others perceive this as having Dylan forced down our collective throats. When you have an advertising campaign that in this case has very little to do with selling beer then something is rotten in Denmark.

As a corporation why would you do something that actively hurts your brand (it would lead some to believe that the advertising is for pure ideological purposes to push the radical trans agenda)? Why do advertising that causes you to lose customers? I have not run a Fortune 500 company, but I have run a small business in the distant past, and I never in my advertising was even tempted to get involved in one side or the other on a hot button political issue (it would merely be a way to piss off potential customers that believe whatever the other side of the issue is the correct one).

[filghy2]

This leads me to Dylan Mulvaney. I really do believe when corporations (when controlled by woke leadership) advertise with someone like Dylan it is for shock value only, and I and others perceive this as having Dylan forced down our collective throats. When you have an advertising campaign that in this case has very little to do with selling beer then something is rotten in Denmark.

What advertising campaign? Where did your see it? I far as I can tell, she only appeared on her own social media page after responding to a general invitation from Bud Light. This is what it says in the article I posted earlier.

"In early April, Bud Light sent an influencer named Dylan Mulvaney a handful of beers. Mulvaney, in turn, posted a video of herself dressed like Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffany’s, using said beers to celebrate both March Madness and her first year of womanhood. One of the cans featured her image. It was part of a paid sponsorship deal and promotion for some sort of sweepstakes challenge where people can win $15,000 from Bud Light by sending in videos of themselves carrying a lot of beers."

This hardly amounts to featuring in a national advertising campaign. Have you never heard of niche advertising? LGBT people drink beer too.

You and your transphobe friends seem to be upset by the idea that a trans person would be used anywhere in any limited way. It really doesn't say much for you that you reflexively go along with this ridiculous beat up, and the fact that you also chose to make gratuitous negative comments about Dylan is also revealing.

Here are four simple questions that I think are a good test of whether you are really sympathetic to trans people:

1. Do you think trans people are entitled to general protection against discrimination in employment, access to services, etc (leaving aside particular cases like female sports or female prisons)?

2. Should trans peoples' gender identification be respected in how they are referred to?

3. Do you think trans people should have the same rights to participate in public life as anyone else?

4. If any of your friends, family or workmates made blatantly transphobic comments would you raise any objection?

I know that people can have different views on things like female sports without necessarily being transphobic, but if you can't answer yes to these questions then I can't see how you can possibly be sympathetic to trans.

[filghy2]

I know you want to present anyone who disagrees with you as a slave to some liberal trans rights orthodoxy, but that is not so. Here's what I said in another thread.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?112361-Spain-and-Scotland-make-gender-self-identification-easier


As long as we have things that are separated by gender (eg female prisons, toilets, sports) then the state or some other authority will need to define gender in some way. What alternative do you suggest?

The fact that some people try to milk an issue for political purposes does not mean there is not a legitimate concern that needs to be taken into account. Most policy issues involve balancing different considerations. In this case the rights of people to choose their own gender identity need to be balanced against the rights of genetic women to have their own space. If we insist that gender self-identification rights must always take precedence and ignore other concerns then we play into the hands of the transphobes.

You are just totally wrong-headed on this issue. You read about this, saw 'woke agenda', went into knee-jerk response mode, and didn't even bother to check basic facts. Whatever sympathy towards trans you might have, it is clearly subservient to your political allegiances.

[mildcigar_2001]

Generally, I think trans people are deserving of the same rights and privileges as anyone else.If someone wants me to refer to them as a particular gender I try to respect that. However the "they, them" crap is pushing it, and I'm probably not going to take that seriously.In my day to day life, I don't think I ever see someone I know going out of their way to be mean or disrespectful to a trans person (or anyone else for that matter). If I think someone's language is out of line, I would say something. I live in the Midwest, and other than some rare crazy people (such as the Westboro Baptist Church) most of us try to live our own lives and leave people alone to live their best life.Where I do hear people make comments recently is about transgender folks in women's sports, or the recent Riley Gaines situation at SF State, and how shouting down and assaulting someone is a poor way to have a discussion in a democracy. However these are transitory comments over the news of the day.The other recent front here in the Midwest is legislation (which I think is needed) restricting sex change therapy for minors. I'm sure this will be seen as a transphobic comment, but I don't think minors are mature enough to able to make those type of decisions until later in life. There also seems to be a good amount of Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy going on with the parents of some of the gender nonconforming minors. I think a good example of going too far too fast in the case of a minor is the case of Jazz Jennings. If I had a child in a similar situation, the last place I would have them work out their life would be in front of the world on The Learning Channel. I think Jazz would have been a lot happier at this point if there had not been a rush to medically and surgically transition her at a very young age.

[filghy2]

I notice that you complained previously about some trans people trying to cancel JK Rowling (yet another canary in that coal mine).


Some of the trans community attempting to cancel J.K. Rowling is the canary in the coal mine.

Rowling is a bleeding heart liberal, and the radical trans community is trying to cancel her.

What is the difference between these cases? Why is it unacceptable for some people to try to cancel JK Rowling because they don't like her views on trans, but perfectly okay for others to try to cancel Anheuser-Busch because they object to even limited use of a trans person in marketing?

For the record, no I don't think JK Rowling should be cancelled, and I do think some trans activists go too far.

Also, why do you continually play up the role of fringe trans activists while downplaying the role of transphobes on your own side?

I notice you continue to be evasive on the question of how exactly Dylan Mulvaney was forced down people's throats. Resorting to words like 'perceived' is a circular justification if the perception is just something manufactured by a right-wing beat-up.

[mildcigar_2001]

I notice that you complained previously about some trans people trying to cancel JK Rowling (yet another canary in that coal mine).



What is the difference between these cases? Why is it unacceptable for some people to try to cancel JK Rowling because they don't like her views on trans, but perfectly okay for others to try to cancel Anheuser-Busch because they object to even limited use of a trans person in marketing?

For the record, no I don't think JK Rowling should be cancelled, and I do think some trans activists go too far.

Also, why do you continually play up the role of fringe trans activists while downplaying the role of transphobes on your own side?

I notice you continue to be evasive on the question of how exactly Dylan Mulvaney was forced down people's throats. Resorting to words like 'perceived' is a circular justification if the perception is just something manufactured by a right-wing beat-up.


I think Dylan is being forced on us because the use of Dylan had nothing whatsoever with trying to sell more beer, but rather yet another attempt to push the woke agenda. I don't have an MBA, but I could have told you a month ago that using Dylan as a spokeswoman to sell Bud Light would not push the needle in a positive direction (i.e. more beer sales). When you conduct an advertising campaign ideally it should be to sell more product (otherwise you are doing a disservice to the shareholders). As I indicated earlier in the thread, Dylan (is an adult, so his "Days of Girlhood" are particularly cringe. It makes a lot of us feel the advertising is being done just to get in our collective faces. Even though the company should have avoided this particular briar patch to altogether, it is my suspicion that with another trans person there would not have seen this hue and cry. Not much of a fuss would have been made if Caitlyn Jenner or even RuPaul was featured in the advertising, and beer sales might have actually increased.

[Fitzcarraldo]

GThe other recent front here in the Midwest is legislation (which I think is needed) restricting sex change therapy for minors. I'm sure this will be seen as a transphobic comment, but I don't think minors are mature enough to able to make those type of decisions until later in life. There also seems to be a good amount of Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy going on with the parents of some of the gender nonconforming minors. I think a good example of going too far too fast in the case of a minor is the case of Jazz Jennings. If I had a child in a similar situation, the last place I would have them work out their life would be in front of the world on The Learning Channel. I think Jazz would have been a lot happier at this point if there had not been a rush to medically and surgically transition her at a very young age.

Why do you think the state should be involved in medical decisions? Parents and doctors should be allowed to decide what's best for a child.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I think Dylan is being forced on us because the use of Dylan had nothing whatsoever with trying to sell more beer, but rather yet another attempt to push the woke agenda.

Anything you don't want to see is "forced" and "woke." Got it.

[filghy2]

It makes a lot of us feel the advertising is being done just to get in our collective faces.

What advertising are you referring to? Have you ever seen any, other than on her social media page as a result of hearing about this controversy? How could something you would never otherwise have seen be done just to get in your face?

[filghy2]

Why do you think the state should be involved in medical decisions? Parents and doctors should be allowed to decide what's best for a child.


Anything you don't want to see is "forced" and "woke." Got it.

Conservative philosophy nowadays:
All for parental choice - unless parents do things they don't like
All for free enterprise - unless companies do things they don't like.
All for limited government - unless people do things they don't like.
All for law and order - unless their people break the law.
All against cancel culture - unless people do things they don't like.

[filghy2]

I don't have an MBA, but I could have told you a month ago that using Dylan as a spokeswoman to sell Bud Light would not push the needle in a positive direction (i.e. more beer sales).

I had never heard of Dylan Mulvaney before this controversy and I really have no opinion on her. It's unlikely that my decisions on buying beer or anything else would be influenced by who appears in their marketing. I see lots of advertising that doesn't work for me. I don't throw a tantrum about it. I just ignore it. Isn't that what any sensible, mature person should do?

[mildcigar_2001]

Anything you don't want to see is "forced" and "woke." Got it.

Finally, someone sees the light of reason.

Well done.

[filghy2]

I think Dylan is being forced on us because the use of Dylan had nothing whatsoever with trying to sell more beer, but rather yet another attempt to push the woke agenda.

One more question. How exactly does this woke agenda work in your mind ? Leaving aside the fact that few people would have seen the promo without the controversy, what would be the result if they had? Would the revelation that some trans people drink beer have underlined the social fabric? Would lots of people decide they wanted to become trans if they saw a trans person drinking beer? Would they be converted to the radical trans rights agenda you keep talking about?

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=mildcigar_2001;2069012]

For example it makes little sense to me for public libraries to host drag queen story hours (we probably shouldn't be promoting overtly sexual entertainment to young children). This very easily leads to charges of grooming. I could care less if adult males want to dress up as women (I assume most of us can admit there is a sexual element at play with this behavior). Nothing particularly wrong with the behavior of crossdressing itself, but it is wrong to put minors into the mix.

-Children like to dress up, and respond to other people dressing up, but if you are sure that there is a sexual element in the situation where most children at that age have no interest or awareness in sexual matters, ask yourself -if these storytime events are introducing children to sexual matters, does watching a Punch and Judy Show introduce, or even normalize violence between parents? Of the two, which is the most explicit -Kandy Floss reading children a story about a dog that gets lost and is found by a five year old; or Punch beating the shit out of his wife with a stick?

In this forum I have expressed the opinion that MTF transsexuals should not compete in sports against biological woman, and predicted that there would be a backlash against the transsexual community as a whole because of the push to include MTF in women's sports.

-This has been debated before in this Forum. And as I have said on those posts the point that is often missed, is that as a male transitions to female, they lose their masculine features as their female ones grow. For some reason, the oestrogen that is part of the transition is not factored in to the transition, so the assumption made is that the athlete is as masculine when competing as they were before their transition began, hence the so-called 'advantage' -so what are authorities to do, insist on medical examinations to ascertain the hormonal balance between athletes? Some women are stronger than others, just as successful swimmers tend to be tall with long arms. A lot of the argument here is bogus, because it collapses all these subtle differences into an either/or option that has no bearing on reality.

I really do believe when corporations (when controlled by woke leadership) advertise with someone like Dylan it is for shock value only...
As a corporation why would you do something that actively hurts your brand (it would lead some to believe that the advertising is for pure ideological purposes to push the radical trans agenda)? Why do advertising that causes you to lose customers? I have not run a Fortune 500 company, but I have run a small business in the distant past, and I never in my advertising was even tempted to get involved in one side or the other on a hot button political issue (it would merely be a way to piss off potential customers that believe whatever the other side of the issue is the correct one)
- I find this quite strange. I don't know what you mean by Corporations have 'woke leadership' -I guess Disney is one you are thinking of?- but I do know that Corporations selling products either hire their own market analysts or pay external consultants to keep them informed of their customer base. As the population of the US has diversified over the decades, so Corporations have adapted their advertising to maintain and expand their customer base. There was a time when you would rarely if ever see a Black face in any advertising, now it is common -and I think you will agree there is a lot of commercial logic in creating a brand that everyone can identify with, and buy the product. You don't need to imagine what would happen if a trans person was used to advertise a product, because it has been done already -the Trans person who gets into a cab gets admiring looks from the driver, until he hears the sound of an electric shaver....the ad was for Levi jeans and as far as I know the company did not lose sales because of it. So below I have linked the ad, preceded by an hysterical piece in the Mail which claims sales of Bud Light have 'fallen off a cliff' because of TIkTok. Whatever, dude.

NANA AKUA: After trans TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney promoted Bud Light, sales have fallen | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11966751/NANA-AKUA-trans-TikTok-personality-Dylan-Mulvaney-promoted-Bud-Light-sales-fallen.html)

Enjoy this instead-

Levi's 1995 Taxi (Freak Power - Tune in, Turn on, Cop out) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AL_SIGM_pc)

[filghy2]

You don't need to imagine what would happen if a trans person was used to advertise a product, because it has been done already -the Trans person who gets into a cab gets admiring looks from the driver, until he hears the sound of an electric shaver....the ad was for Levi jeans and as far as I know the company did not lose sales because of it.

And you know why? The 'woke agenda' boogeyman had not been invented in 1995, so nobody thought to stir up a campaign against it. This backlash did not arise spontaneously, just as January 6 did not arise spontaneously. If Anheuser-Busch made a marketing misjudgement, it's because they failed to take account of the peculiar right-wing psychology of our times.

[Faenon]

I am kind of in shock at some of the posts in this thread. I can't believe anyone who frequents this forum could be generally supportive and quote WOKE (which is just a term used for bigots to legitimise their bigotry) to the right wing loons that are using this to fuel their hate.

Whatever you think about Dylan is irrelevant, the issue here is much greater, it's one where transphobic, rhetoric and hate is being platformed, there are threats of violence over a persons being used by a few companies to promote their products, it's down right ridiculous and a danger to a already persecuted community.

We who admire trans women should be supporting the community not enabling those with hate filled agendas to propagate their bigotry. I am shocked and disappointed with folks in this thread.

I remain in awe of he strength of trans women to have the bravery to come out to the world and show it what they truly are when this world is so full of pretty horrid people.

I have no desire to debate further, I will not respond further so don't bother trying to justify your stance. This is very much a drop the mic post but I had to get this off my chest. Shame on you.

[broncofan]

I know that people can have different views on things like female sports without necessarily being transphobic, but if you can't answer yes to these questions then I can't see how you can possibly be sympathetic to trans.
This is the core of what I object to most here. He is using the fact that some activists have said some extreme things about issues that are worthy of thoughtful discussion as an excuse to ignore flagrant transphobia. If a Jewish person in one situation says something is antisemitic when it's not, would that justify defending unambiguous antisemitism when you see it? Ditto a Black person, a Muslim, a gay man, etc. It is an excuse because people are capable of discernment. It really reminds me of the twitter users who underneath every news article about a hate crime will post an old article about the rare time that there was a false flag on that same kind of hate. It is underhanded and dishonest.

It would be one thing if he said he wasn't sure whether transgender women have an unfair physical advantage in sports over cisgender women and you'd like to discuss it. But if he wanted to do that, he'd do that and wouldn't do more. But he is doing more. He's supporting a boycott of a beer because a transgender woman is part of their promotional campaign. That implies that transgender representation is unwholesome, or embarrassing, or should be discouraged. You really can't defend it and be sympathetic to the community.

I also don't buy that it was shoved down anyone's throat. The only time I saw anything about it was from the right-wing outrage machine. But the issue here is very straightforward. Look at your excellent second question? Are transgender people permitted the same visibility in public, the same representation in public roles as everyone else or will we always find an excuse and say, "I'm not against them but this is being forced on us." Well fuck. Any time anyone appears in an ad they are being forced on us but if we don't object to their appearance in the ad, life goes on and we buy the product or we don't.

[broncofan]

Not much of a fuss would have been made if Caitlyn Jenner or even RuPaul was featured in the advertising, and beer sales might have actually increased.
Rupaul is not a transgender woman but is a drag queen. So basically you're saying that Caitlyn Jenner is the one transgender woman who is permitted to hold a public role. Everything you say in this post is belied by the fact that the comments section under every right-wing article about a transgender politician or public figure is filled with contempt. People calling mtf transsexuals men, calling them delusional, and just making spiteful comments. I've also seen the twitter feeds of right-wing commentators with over a million followers doing the exact same thing. I don't know who you think you're fooling. The objection of many within this right-wing subculture is to the presence of transgender men or women either in serious roles or in advertisements of things they like.

[Stavros]

All American Citizens Are Equal Before the Law. Discuss.

[natina]

141737614173751417374

There are a bunch of hashtags going around
Like

"
people still can not change their sex.


#TransIsALie
#TranswomanAreConMen

"

[filghy2]

So basically you're saying that Caitlyn Jenner is the one transgender woman who is permitted to hold a public role.

And also happens to be a Republican supporter. Is the premise that the only trans right-wingers will accept are those that are on their side?

I could maybe understand the woke agenda argument if they had partnered with a trans rights activist. However, the only controversial thing about Dylan Mulvaney seems to be the fact that she's trans.

Suppose Bud Light had partnered with, say, a disabled person who had a big social media following. Would we be hearing a lot of fuss about woke agendas forcing disabled people down their throats and how this had nothing to do with selling beer? I don't think so.

[filghy2]

This is the core of what I object to most here. He is using the fact that some activists have said some extreme things about issues that are worthy of thoughtful discussion as an excuse to ignore flagrant transphobia.

I wonder what the thinking process is behind his constant refrain about provoking a backlash? Is he suggesting these people start off thinking trans people are fine and shouldn't be abused or discriminated against; they see Lia Thomas or some trans activist and decide that abuse or discrimination against trans are okay after all?

There's a lot of victim-blaming going on here. The fault is not with the transphobes; the fault is with trans for doing things that provoke them.

[broncofan]

I wonder what the thinking process is behind his constant refrain about provoking a backlash? Is he suggesting these people start off thinking trans people are fine and shouldn't be abused or discriminated against; they see Lia Thomas or some trans activist and decide that abuse or discrimination against trans are okay after all?

There's a lot of victim-blaming going on here. The fault is not with the transphobes; the fault is with trans for doing things that provoke them.
I think that's the facade. They imply they would have no problem with transsexuals if not for a position that some individual took that really ticked them off. And whichever person they're currently mistreating doesn't even have to be the person who ticked them off because it's backlash. The problem for them is that we can see the tweets of tens of thousands of so-called moderate Republicans calling the transgender U.S. Assistant secretary for health every name in the book and creating unflattering memes to mock her for being transsexual.

They're pretending this is marginal stuff and there's this very reasonable, yet silent majority who are just fed up with seeing a transgender person once every several months (they think the interval should be longer).

I'm telling you since Elon got ahold of twitter, every civil rights organization on there gets trolled by not just groypers, but lots of Republicans posting under their own names. To them, all of these organizations are the cause of bigotry, and they're justified in spewing all sorts of inflammatory, misleading, subliterate nonsense at them because they caused the.......ummm backlash.

[broncofan]

They imply they would have no problem with transsexuals if not for a position that some individual took that really ticked them off. And whichever person they're currently mistreating doesn't even have to be the person who ticked them off because it's backlash.
Not that this would be okay anyway because it's bigotry to blame a member of a group for the actions of some other member of that group. But in this case it doesn't even makes sense. The malice has always been there.

[filghy2]

They're pretending this is marginal stuff and there's this very reasonable, yet silent majority who are just fed up with seeing a transgender person once every several months (they think the interval should be longer).

This is the essence of the problem in the US. The supposedly normal, decent Republicans (as mildcigar clearly thinks he is) excuse all sorts of bad behaviour on their side because they've been conditioned to see the world in 'us vs them' terms. Things they don't like are not a normal part of a pluralistic society, but are as result of malign conspiracies (eg the 'woke' corporations). This liberates the worst aspects in many people, because they no longer have to fear any negative consequences from their own side.

[beezlebozo]

This never gets old about why you should call out or stand against them, was a punk and skinhead (ska skinhead not the other type)
https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-explains-why-he-swiftly-kicks-nazis-out-of-his-punk-bar-even-if-theyre-not-bothering-anyone

[beezlebozo]

From the UK and bud light isn't even classed as a beer

[Del06]

So far, neither mildcigar or anyone else has bothered to defined what the "radical trans agenda" is. I suspect that's because there is no such thing, and that mildcigar and his co-ideologists are just using this emotion-packed word (radical) to rile folks up. And "agenda" -- this implies that trans-people and those who respect them have a (hidden) agenda: there's this secret plot to -- what? Again, an emotion-bearing word with no actual meaning.

[thombergeron]

I think I have general sympathy for transsexuals as a group.

I assume that having gender dysphoria is a hard row to hoe.

I think the opinions expressed by me in this forum and in public for that matter generally support the best interests of transsexual community. I'm sure a good number of my opinions go against the current trans orthodoxy, but that doesn't make me wrong or a hater of transsexuals.

Truly no lower form of scum than someone who opposes civil rights for the people they jack off to. Creeps like this should be banned.

[dirkmcgee]

You said "I don't think a majority of them hate trans folks." Yet here they are boycotting a beer brand not because of anything controversial but because a transsexual is part of a promotional campaign. That's it.

Yet the only issue here is whether a transgender woman should be part of a promotional campaign.



This is the typical bullshit slight of hand. Have a problem with Dylan essentially acting as a female caricature, highlighting stereotypes we were all told were wrong? You must be a BiGoT.

It's so transparent and tiresome.

[dirkmcgee]

I could maybe understand the woke agenda argument if they had partnered with a trans rights activist. However, the only controversial thing about Dylan Mulvaney seems to be the fact that she's trans.



Yawn. More of the same absolute gaslighting.

[filghy2]

This is the typical bullshit slight of hand. Have a problem with Dylan essentially acting as a female caricature, highlighting stereotypes we were all told were wrong? You must be a BiGoT.

It's so transparent and tiresome.

Right, so in your view these people are kicking up a stink about Dylan Mulvaney because they object to inappropriate stereotyping of trans?

Nice straw man attempt though. Your concern sounds very sincere.

As you said, transparent and tiresome.

[filghy2]

So far, neither mildcigar or anyone else has bothered to defined what the "radical trans agenda" is.

He has defined "woke" though. "Woke" is anything he doesn't like.

[dirkmcgee]

Right, so in your view these people are kicking up a stink about Dylan Mulvaney because they object to inappropriate stereotyping of trans?

Nice straw man attempt though. Your concern sounds very sincere.

As you said, transparent and tiresome.

They object to Dylan's inappropriate objectifying and stereotyping of women.

They probably also object to Dylan's assertion that men can menstruate.

Acting as though Dylan isn't incredibly problematic destroys any shred of credibility.

[filghy2]

Truly no lower form of scum than someone who opposes civil rights for the people they jack off to. Creeps like this should be banned.

I disagree. As long as they are not stooping to overt nastiness, I think it's better to let them have their say and then confront their views and try to force them to be accountable. That usually demonstrates that their arguments are flimsy, as we've seen here.

[filghy2]

They object to Dylan's inappropriate objectifying and stereotyping of women.

Right, so Kid Rock and Travis Tritt were really demonstrating their solidarity with feminism?

Who do you think you are fooling? Most of these people think that complaining about objectifying and stereotyping women is "woke".

[filghy2]

Yawn. More of the same absolute gaslighting.

BTW, thanks for going to the trouble of downvoting my 5-year old posts in another thread. Very adult. Was that little frenzy cathartic for you?

[thombergeron]

love how this mouthbreather accuses you of gaslighting then says "these alcoholic misogynists were just protecting women!"

[filghy2]

The above marketing faux pas combined with the recent push to normalize transsexuals in Women's sports and Drag queen story hours, are helping create a backlash against trans folks that just want to live their lives.

So much for your backlash.
https://www.prri.org/research/findings-from-the-2022-american-values-atlas/

"Eight in ten Americans (80%) favor laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing. This includes 48% who strongly support such laws. About one in five Americans (18%) oppose these laws, including 7% who strongly oppose them. Support for these protections has increased over the past few years: around seven in ten Americans favored nondiscrimination provisions in 2015 (71%), 2017 (70%), 2018 (69%), and 2019 (72%), before rising to 76% in 2020 and 79% in 2021.[5]

Overwhelming shares of Democrats (90%) and independents (82%), as well as two-thirds of Republicans (66%), favor nondiscrimination provisions for LGBTQ people. Since 2015, support has increased by 12 percentage points among Democrats (78% to 90%) and nine percentage points among independents (73% to 82%). Support among Republicans has increased by five percentage points (61% to 66%)."

[thombergeron]

This is the typical bullshit slight of hand. Have a problem with Dylan essentially acting as a female caricature, highlighting stereotypes we were all told were wrong? You must be a BiGoT.

It's so transparent and tiresome.

Dylan isn't a caricature of a woman. She is a woman, you closeted trash.

[Stavros]

Why are people getting so upset and angry about issues which do not concern 90% of the population? There are not enough Trans people to change a vote, while the real issue for me, citizens with equal rights before the law, is rarely discussed. It seems some people are more equal than others.

I can understand some of the militants forcing their views into the public mind through stunts and posts on social media which are designed to be provocative, but that ought not to detract from the real issues that Trans people face, wherever they live. The weaponization of Trans issues by Trump and De Santis is a mark of their weakness, their failure to collect together a basket of policies that affect the majority of Americans. They end up sounding like basket cases, and in time I think the voters will reject the increasingly autocratic politics.

[thombergeron]

So much for your backlash.
https://www.prri.org/research/findings-from-the-2022-american-values-atlas/

"Eight in ten Americans (80%) favor laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing. This includes 48% who strongly support such laws. About one in five Americans (18%) oppose these laws, including 7% who strongly oppose them. Support for these protections has increased over the past few years: around seven in ten Americans favored nondiscrimination provisions in 2015 (71%), 2017 (70%), 2018 (69%), and 2019 (72%), before rising to 76% in 2020 and 79% in 2021.[5]

Overwhelming shares of Democrats (90%) and independents (82%), as well as two-thirds of Republicans (66%), favor nondiscrimination provisions for LGBTQ people. Since 2015, support has increased by 12 percentage points among Democrats (78% to 90%) and nine percentage points among independents (73% to 82%). Support among Republicans has increased by five percentage points (61% to 66%)."

These dipshits are so convinced that they're red-hot Americans they have no idea that most people don't give a shit about their culture war garbage. This dude is like "I don't have an MBA but..." Yeah bud, you also don't know that Bud Light has been the cheap beer of choice at Pride for decades. Pretty sure the MBAs working for Anheuser-Busch know that.

[broncofan]

This dirkmcgee fella is a silly coward. What a pathetic little closet case.

[broncofan]

They object to Dylan's inappropriate objectifying and stereotyping of women.

They probably also object to Dylan's assertion that men can menstruate.

Acting as though Dylan isn't incredibly problematic destroys any shred of credibility.
Problematic? The people objecting to Dylan representing budweiser are doing so for reasons they're clear about. They call mtf transsexuals "men", "perverts", they blame Jews for some conspiracy to mainstream transgender rights. You're a giant phony.

[broncofan]

This is the typical bullshit slight of hand. Have a problem with Dylan essentially acting as a female caricature, highlighting stereotypes we were all told were wrong? You must be a BiGoT.

It's so transparent and tiresome.
You don't even know how to spell sleight of hand you moron. Why haven't any of the transphobes who are boycotting Budweiser and who btw also think transgender people are responsible for a large share of gun violence
making this argument?

Why are they spending their entire days pretending that transgender people are all groomers and that nobody transitions unless they're delusional? I can link some of the responses to calls to boycott Budweiser if you'd like?

We can all see the arguments being made by the Nazi trash you're defending and none of these people are feminists.

[broncofan]

Right, so Kid Rock and Travis Tritt were really demonstrating their solidarity with feminism?

Who do you think you are fooling? Most of these people think that complaining about objectifying and stereotyping women is "woke".
Kid Rock is a third wave feminist and while he loves and cherishes transgender women, he feels passionately that women's reproductive healthcare, including contraception and access to abortion need to be prioritized. He is going to be passing out pregnancy tests outside the women's hospital and reminding women to get their pap smears. Just look for the guy with the goatee and the pussy hat.

[filghy2]

This dirkmcgee fella is a silly coward. What a pathetic little closet case.

Dirkmcgee is a grub with no redeeming traits. I have more sympathy for the other guy, who may be well-intentioned but too influenced by what he sees in right-wing media. He did at least have the integrity stay and debate the issue for some time.

[dirkmcgee]

Kid Rock is a third wave feminist and while he loves and cherishes transgender women, he feels passionately that women's reproductive healthcare, including contraception and access to abortion need to be prioritized. He is going to be passing out pregnancy tests outside the women's hospital and reminding women to get their pap smears. Just look for the guy with the goatee and the pussy hat.

Lol, because if anyone speaks for the entirety of anyone right leaning it's fucking Kid Rock. Without even touching the AcCeSs tO aBoRtIoN quip as if the pro-life community isn't under consistent and violent attack.

Imbecile. Bonus points for stupidity re: the NaZi drop two comments ago, which is the literal lowest common denominator of political discourse (yet of course despite being a hallmark of leftist simpletons, only Gina Carano gets in trouble for such idiocy).



Dirkmcgee is a grub with no redeeming traits. I have more sympathy for the other guy, who may be well-intentioned but too influenced by what he sees in right-wing media. He did at least have the integrity stay and debate the issue for some time.

Lol, the iron law of woke projection always applies, but fuck you too you propagandist piece of shit.

[dirkmcgee]

These dipshits are so convinced that they're red-hot Americans they have no idea that most people don't give a shit about their culture war garbage. This dude is like "I don't have an MBA but..." Yeah bud, you also don't know that Bud Light has been the cheap beer of choice at Pride for decades. Pretty sure the MBAs working for Anheuser-Busch know that.

CuLtUrE wAr gArBaGe.

Casual reminder the left has waged a culture war at literally every turn over the last forty years, but when the right finally responds in kind, its "culture war garbage."

And no, Dylan literally identifies as a fucking girl. Not a woman. Nor is womanhood boiled down to her consistently squealing videos about "boys and shopping" it's literal fucking appropriation.

You're the type that would call Blaire White a "traitor" so you can fuck off too, you hypocritical sack of shit. As can Broncofan.

[filghy2]

Good for you man. Let it all out. You certainly make a compelling case that you are not a grub and you have many redeeming traits.

[filghy2]

1417436

[Stavros]

CuLtUrE wAr gArBaGe.

Casual reminder the left has waged a culture war at literally every turn over the last forty years, but when the right finally responds in kind, its "culture war garbage."



On the other hand, what does this mean?
-Was it the 'Left' that succeeded in getting the Hays Code dropped from the media with regard to Tv and Films? Would you like to see the Hays Code re-instated? Quire a lot of Evangelicals would.

-Do you think the repeal of laws making same-sex relations illegal (and 'Sodomy' is still, technically, illegal in 16 US States) should be reversed, and with it, same-sex marriage rights? Has this been a 'left wing' conspiracy to destroy the family? Or the natural evolution of individual rights as guaranteed in the US Constitution?

-the Supreme Court has all but gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -has this benefited the USA? Should 'the Left' be blamed for promoting it in the first place? And was LBJ a 'left wing' President?

-Has the 'left' promoted the legalization of Marijuana? Has nobody else thought it might be a good idea?

And so on. I think if you are going to dismiss so much of the last 40 years as 'culture war garbage' at least tell us what you want to throw out; and what you want to put back in, or create -and tell us, for whom?

[dirkmcgee]

On the other hand, what does this mean?
-Was it the 'Left' that succeeded in getting the Hays Code dropped from the media with regard to Tv and Films? Would you like to see the Hays Code re-instated? Quire a lot of Evangelicals would.

-Do you think the repeal of laws making same-sex relations illegal (and 'Sodomy' is still, technically, illegal in 16 US States) should be reversed, and with it, same-sex marriage rights? Has this been a 'left wing' conspiracy to destroy the family? Or the natural evolution of individual rights as guaranteed in the US Constitution?

-the Supreme Court has all but gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -has this benefited the USA? Should 'the Left' be blamed for promoting it in the first place? And was LBJ a 'left wing' President?

-Has the 'left' promoted the legalization of Marijuana? Has nobody else thought it might be a good idea?

And so on. I think if you are going to dismiss so much of the last 40 years as 'culture war garbage' at least tell us what you want to throw out; and what you want to put back in, or create -and tell us, for whom?

The swing vote for same sex marriage was Anthony Kennedy, widely considered a centrist, if not conservative. Modern polls show conservatives in favor of same sex marriage, but that's never highlighted whereas politicians such as our current president were similarly against it before they were for it. But of course, that's considered an "evolution" as opposed to reading the tea leaves.

Marijuana legalization absolutely is not a hallmark of the left, politicians on the right such as Dana Rohrabacher have been at the forefront of ending the prohibition.

SCOTUS has hardly gutted the voting rights act, this is a blatant falsehood.

[Stavros]

SCOTUS has hardly gutted the voting rights act, this is a blatant falsehood.


"Seven years ago today, the supreme court issued one of the most consequential rulings in a generation in a case called Shelby county v Holder (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf). In a 5-4 vote, the court struck down a formula at the heart of the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 law that required certain states and (https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-covered-section-5) localities with a history of discrimination against minority voters to get changes cleared by the federal government before they went into effect.
It’s hard to overstate the significance of this decision. The power of the Voting Rights Act was in the design that the supreme court gutted – discriminatory voting policies could be blocked before they harmed voters."
In 2013 the supreme court gutted voting rights – how has it changed the US? | US supreme court | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/25/shelby-county-anniversary-voting-rights-act-consequences)

It might help if you were to list the policies of the last 40 years for which you hold 'the Left' responsible. Currently, the Republicans are in the process of demolishing as much as they can, most obviously with regard to Abortion -was Roe-vs- Wade solely a 'left wing' policy adopted by SCOTUS?

[filghy2]

The swing vote for same sex marriage was Anthony Kennedy, widely considered a centrist, if not conservative. Modern polls show conservatives in favor of same sex marriage, but that's never highlighted whereas politicians such as our current president were similarly against it before they were for it. But of course, that's considered an "evolution" as opposed to reading the tea leaves.

So we should just disregard that fact that the great majority of Republican politicians and judges voted against it?

Your debating technique is like a magician's sleight of hand: a flurry of dubious or irrelevant assertions to distract attention from the real issues and facts: eg, don't look at the all the people trying to promote a transphobic furore over there; look at this trans person promoting female stereotypes over here.

[broncofan]

Obergefell was decided by a 5-4 vote. The 4 votes against it were by Conservative Justices. 4 votes were by Justices appointed by Democrats who are widely considered left-leaning. I think holding onto Kennedy as the representative of the thoughtful conservative when 4 Conservative Justices were vehemently opposed to Obergefell's ruling is a good analogy for what you're doing here.

You may try to put an intellectual gloss on a boycott movement that was started by people with broadly transphobic views, but you're a long way from convincing anyone that the average person supporting the boycott respects transgender people, would refer to them by their chosen pronouns, and would not have objected to other transgender product endorsers.

I'd be willing to discuss my use of the word Nazi in the other forum but I think it distracts from the main topic here. What I see from many of the boycotters is a panic about sexual orientation and gender identity as well as broad attempts to accuse the lgbt movement of indoctrination and grooming. It is an offshoot of the kind of right-wing ugliness that probably motivated Desantis' don't say gay bill, which is not dissimilar from the anti-gay laws that have appeared in Russia.

Anyhow, we'll see how the leading lights of the Conservative movement (not Kid Rock apparently) will respond to other transgender women in the public sphere. Or are they all automatically guilty of female impersonation on account of the fact that they transitioned?

[Dudedude12345]

Bud Light slapped a photo of a TikTok star on cans and the dumbasses got mad


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFJmkr6LIqs

But it's not that a TikTok star (who's audience is mostly children) is promoting alcohol but it's a transgender woman promoting beer they like. My point is this, I personally don't care one way or another if you don't like the person Bud Light comes in bottles. I personally don't drink alcohol but if I did I wouldn't care because I would buy alcohol to have drunk sex because I'm not an attractive person and alcohol does help with that.

[Dudedude12345]

Oh, and Joe Rogan got attacked by his fans for defending Bud Light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOshNADfQ1M

[filghy2]

Obergefell was decided by a 5-4 vote. The 4 votes against it were by Conservative Justices. 4 votes were by Justices appointed by Democrats who are widely considered left-leaning. I think holding onto Kennedy as the representative of the thoughtful conservative when 4 Conservative Justices were vehemently opposed to Obergefell's ruling is a good analogy for what you're doing here.

Three-quarters of Republicans in Congress also voted against the same-sex marriage act last year. If most of the party's supporters are okay with it there must be a strange disconnect going on.

Even if most Republicans are not trans- or homophobic they seem very willing to turn a blind eye and/or excuse those who are. That's why Trump and De Santis think they can appeal to transphobia without it hurting them in the primaries. Would mildcigar or dirkmcgee refuse to vote for a Republican candidate who ran on transphobic themes?

[filghy2]

Oh, and Joe Rogan got attacked by his fans for defending Bud Light

Howard Stern also defended Dylan. These guys are no "woke" warriors, but they know a manufactured outrage campaign when they see it.

[filghy2]

Interestingly, if you look at the Anheuser-Busch stock price over a longer period the effect of this furore is hardly noticeable. There was a moderate fall after the story broke, but there have been much bigger falls previously. The price has halved since 2016, so I guess the company has bigger problems.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=anheuser-busch+stock+price

[Lorca81]

The irony of this media-manufactured controversy is that Bud Lite has simultaneously marketed itself to diametrically opposite niche segments for decades. For instance, it sponsors SF Pride and practically every neighborhood gay bar in SF has a “Bud Lite” sign, complete with a neon rainbow; at the same time Bud Lite also sponsors and advertises at stereotypical macho and events like NASCAR, football, etc.

[Stavros]

Slight diversion from the thread -do Americans drink Cider, or Shandy?

[filghy2]

The irony of this media-manufactured controversy is that Bud Lite has simultaneously marketed itself to diametrically opposite niche segments for decades. For instance, it sponsors SF Pride and practically every neighborhood gay bar in SF has a “Bud Lite” sign, complete with a neon rainbow; at the same time Bud Lite also sponsors and advertises at stereotypical macho and events like NASCAR, football, etc.

You mean these sneaky bastards have been pushing their woke agenda down mildcigar's throat for decades and nobody told him?

[Luke Warm]

I never heard of Dylan until I read the post here saying she was being “pushed down my throat” (interesting phrase in this context). I think she appeals to a younger crowd than mine. Bud Light is smart to cast a wide net with their advertising. Reversing their position post-uproar won’t change anyone’s minds at this point, and makes them look weak and insincere. A year from now, this will be almost totally forgotten, like previous outrages (gay Teletubbies, Mrs. Potato Head, Dr Seuss “censoring” his own books, etc)

[Luke Warm]

Kid Rock almost became relevant again though. Good effort, Kid.

How come this backlash isn’t an example of “cancel culture”? ��

[mildcigar_2001]

Three-quarters of Republicans in Congress also voted against the same-sex marriage act last year. If most of the party's supporters are okay with it there must be a strange disconnect going on.

Even if most Republicans are not trans- or homophobic they seem very willing to turn a blind eye and/or excuse those who are. That's why Trump and De Santis think they can appeal to transphobia without it hurting them in the primaries. Would mildcigar or dirkmcgee refuse to vote for a Republican candidate who ran on transphobic themes?

I suppose my definition of transphobic and your definition of transphobic are completely different.

I think everyone should be treated more or less equally under the law.

I am not in favor of grooming, I'm not in favor of minors transitioning, I'm not in favor of people "claiming" to be women being allowed in women's and girl's restrooms (If you can pass and are on hormones it is not as much as a concern, but just because you claim to be a women doesn't make you one).

My primary concern is preservation of the Republic.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade. We have crime running rampant in our major cities, massive inflation, we have the executive branch attempting to ban gasoline powered cars via executive fiat, we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc. I have a whole host of legitimate concerns.

America is some 31 trillion in debt, and is adding 1-2 trillion a year to said national debt.

If and when there is an economic meltdown I have no doubt that the trans community will suffer more than the population as a whole.

To me it would be transphobic if I voted for more craziness.

[filghy2]

My primary concern is preservation of the Republic.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade.

Voting for the folks who tried to overturn the Constitution in order to save the Republic, huh? I take it you know what followed the Weimar Republic.

Your little speech was way off topic, but it's nice to know you can get a person to eventually reveal themselves if you give them enough encouragement.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Slight diversion from the thread -do Americans drink Cider, or Shandy?

It's a big country. There are people here who drink any conceivable alcoholic beverage. The gluten-free crowd can drink cider.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I suppose my definition of transphobic and your definition of transphobic are completely different.

I think everyone should be treated more or less equally under the law.

I am not in favor of grooming, I'm not in favor of minors transitioning, I'm not in favor of people "claiming" to be women being allowed in women's and girl's restrooms (If you can pass and are on hormones it is not as much as a concern, but just because you claim to be a women doesn't make you one).

My primary concern is preservation of the Republic.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade. We have crime running rampant in our major cities, massive inflation, we have the executive branch attempting to ban gasoline powered cars via executive fiat, we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc. I have a whole host of legitimate concerns.

America is some 31 trillion in debt, and is adding 1-2 trillion a year to said national debt.

If and when there is an economic meltdown I have no doubt that the trans community will suffer more than the population as a whole.

To me it would be transphobic if I voted for more craziness.

Please explain how trans people have put us in a position similar to the Weimar Republic (especially in light of you not being in any way transphobic).

[mildcigar_2001]

Please explain how trans people have put us in a position similar to the Weimar Republic (especially in light of you not being in any way transphobic).


Trans people other than at the periphery had little to do with it. Some of the trans extremists just add to the circus-like atmosphere, i.e. Lia Thomas beating a bunch of young women and thinking she has accomplished something. Drag queens putting on sexually suggestive shows in front of kids. Housing biological males in women's prison. A symptom rather than a cause of our decline.

The point I was unartfully trying to express was that the trans community will suffer (as will we all) if we continue are current trajectory (economically, and socially). For example I imagine if we dug into the recent crime statistics, I would be willing to bet the soft on crime policies pushed recently by the Left has hurt the trans community (i.e., they became the victims of crime more often because of the out of control conditions in many of our major cities).

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=mildcigar_2001;2069687]

I think everyone should be treated more or less equally under the law.
-I would prefer you to argue 'everyone is equal under the law' rather than 'more or less', because it appears that Trans Americans are not equal to other Americans, that State legislatures are passing laws that target Trans Americans because they are Trans, laws that are not passed with equal measure against non-Trans Americans. I don't see how such laws can be justified when the law must be equal for all, or the US is not governed by its Constitution.

The United States has gradually slid into an almost Weimar type existence over the past decade. We have crime running rampant in our major cities
-But not if you compare the evidence of the last 20 years with the 1990s when the crack epidemic was laying waste to a generation f youth-
"Property crime — theft, auto theft and burglary — has been falling regularly for the last 20 years. Violent crime — aggravated assault, murder, rape and robbery — increased at least in 2020, but remains lower than it was in the 1990s"
Is crime rising in the U.S.? Here's what data can and can't tell us : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2022/10/27/1131825858/us-crime-data-midterm-elections#:~:text=Property%20crime%20%E2%80%94%20t heft%2C%20auto%20theft,think%20of%2C%22%20Asher%20 says.)

massive inflation,
-Inflation is higher than the long term average @3.28% but is down to 4.28% from 6.04% and 8.45% in 2022 -so not rampant at all.
US Inflation Rate (ycharts.com) (https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate#:~:text=Basic%20Info,long%20term %20average%20of%203.28%25.)

we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc.
-Americans have been arguing over the meaning of the First Amendment for as long as I can recall, and the most open attack on it in recent years has been mounted by Donald J. Trump who doesn't like it when Americans say bad things about him and he wants to stop it. I don't know if any law can regulate feelings, but at the same time, laws on Hate Speech are there to deter people from taking their Hate a stage further than 'speech' to become an 'Act'. And some might argue that the Speech is itself an Act, though I don't know if a court of law would agree. Might depend on the case.

Should citizens have the right to define their identity, be it sexual or 'hyphenated'? I think this is part of the broader debate, and it seems that the very same people who claim to stand up for individual liberty are the same people who want to deny individuals the liberty to define their identity -when they don't like it.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Trans people other than at the periphery had little to do with it. Some of the trans extremists just add to the circus-like atmosphere, i.e. Lia Thomas beating a bunch of young women and thinking she has accomplished something. Drag queens putting on sexually suggestive shows in front of kids. Housing biological males in women's prison. A symptom rather than a cause of our decline.

The point I was unartfully trying to express was that the trans community will suffer (as will we all) if we continue are current trajectory (economically, and socially). For example I imagine if we dug into the recent crime statistics, I would be willing to bet the soft on crime policies pushed recently by the Left has hurt the trans community (i.e., they became the victims of crime more often because of the out of control conditions in many of our major cities).

You are claiming the historical Weimar Republic side while making all the historical Nazi side arguments.

[mildcigar_2001]

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

[broncofan]

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.
It's almost like you're stripping the Nazis of culpability. Perhaps this is what you mean by backlash. I would almost guarantee that any explanation you've ever given for hate crimes starts with the behaviors of the victimized group rather than the haters. There's value in looking at causes but ignoring the most proximate causes to blame the victims is odious.

Edit: I feel like we're a few posts away from "Eichmann was a victim of cancel culture" so I'm gonna do something else. Also, see Stavros' post above about inflation. We're not anywhere near the hyperinflation of the early 1920s and it's frankly a dumb comparison if you look at the purchase power of the dollar v. German Papiermark at the time you would see that.

[broncofan]

Our expert on early 20th century monetary policy is comparing inflation in the United States, that reached a peak of about 8.5% and is down below 4.5% to hyperinflation, with numbers that reached currency devaluations on the order of a trillion. Just to show how ridiciulous that is take a look at the mark exchange rate. It went from 4.2 marks to the dollar in 1918 to $4,210,500,000,000 marks to the dollar in 1923. I looked it up because I wasn't absolutely certain what the number is in words, but that's one dollar to more than 4 trillion marks. Okay so we don't get there over night right (sarcasm). First, we're up 8%, then back to 4.5%, then who knows. No, the decrease in the value of the mark was swift as soon as Germany tried to pay for the war (and the levies against them from Versailles which I'm sure we'll also blame) by printing money. In 1919, it was already 48 marks to the dollar. This is more than a 1000% increase about a year after the end of WWI. I'm not going to express the 1923 number in percentage terms but the comparison is just dumb and to use it to explain people's bigotry even dumber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

[broncofan]

we have "Liberals" wanting to do apply the First Amendment to only those folks that agree with you and regulate everyone else because your feelings are impacted, etc. I have a whole host of legitimate concerns.
I'd be willing to bet you don't have even the vaguest notion of what speech the first amendment protects but go on. That's not a legitimate concern. That's simply a misunderstanding of what the first amendment protects and from whom unless I'm wrong about what you're referring to.

[mildcigar_2001]

I'd be willing to bet you don't have even the vaguest notion of what speech the first amendment protects but go on. That's not a legitimate concern. That's simply a misunderstanding of what the first amendment protects and from whom unless I'm wrong about what you're referring to.

The Free Speech clause of First Amendment was originally designed to protect "political speech" from government regulation. It applies to both state and federal governments (in the U.S.), and their political subdivisions. With privately owned entities such as this forum it does not apply at all (unless the government was pressuring the owner of forum to censor certain things).

[broncofan]

The Free Speech clause of First Amendment was originally designed to protect "political speech" from government regulation. It applies to both state and federal governments (in the U.S.), and their political subdivisions. With privately owned entities such as this forum it does not apply at all (unless the government was pressuring the owner of forum to censor certain things).
That's right (thank you google). So what are you saying is being censored by liberals? Surely boycotts by private actors don't infringe the 1st amendment. So it's not like liberals are arguing this boycott violates the first amendment but then are demanding they get to use boycotts. So what are you talking about?

[Fitzcarraldo]

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

Bullshit. The currency issues were caused by factors external to Germany, namely the reparations as part of the Great War armistice. Many Germans wanted the aristocracy to return. The industrialists feared the communists, and so they backed the fascist because they thought the fascists could keep the communists in line, and in turn they thought they could keep the fascists in line. No one can keep fascists in line. The military and police sided with the fascists (surprise). Von Shleicher was a conservative, but did make a noble attempt to keep the Republic going, even if he violated its constitution. The problem was that von Papen had Hindenburg's ear, and von Papen thought he could keep Hitler under control (notice a theme here?). The Social Democrats were the best hope at the time for preserving the Republic, but as is often the case, people aren't passionate about the middle (and the industrialists, who had all the money, didn't like them).
The unemployed and hungry would vote for whoever promised them jobs and food. That had nothing to do with liberalism, artistic expression, or sexual flamboyance. Degenerate art didn't kill the Weimar Republic, either.
Read some books. I highly recommend Otto Friedrich's Before the Deluge.

[Stavros]

That's right (thank you google). So what are you saying is being censored by liberals? Surely boycotts by private actors don't infringe the 1st amendment. So it's not like liberals are arguing this boycott violates the first amendment but then are demanding they get to use boycotts. So what are you talking about?

I think in the US and also here in the UK, there is concern at the dogmatic position some Trans activists take, which means they seek to prevent certain people from speaking in public, for example at universities. In some cases, as with Kathleen Stock, the abuse she suffered in her University led to her leaving it, and I don't think anyone benefited from it. As with JK Rowling, I would prefer a reasonable and open debate on the broad issues involved, because at a basic level I don't think either Rowling or Stock have any animosity towards Trans people. They object to the apparent collapse of categories when this philosophical argument is translated into public policy, such as the management of public spaces which are often reserved for either Males or Females.

I don't think Male and Female categories are as rigid or fixed as some think, but at the same time, there is a danger of a gender version of 'replacement theory' where Women are replaced by Trans Women, and if that is the anxiety, that 2nd or 3rd Generation Feminists believe their attainments are being sidelines, even relegated, as if they were irrelevant, must be dealt with. The ugly rows in public do not advance any understanding of Trans issues, or any sympathy for the people involved.

I would suggest this is different from 'no platforming' a Nazi because while Trans activists seek equality in its various forms that does not damage society, Nazis and their fellow travellers seek real change and thus have a more toxic agenda, one that brings violence into the arena, as happened in Charlottesville. From this perspective, it is about the management of the message, and while we can criticize the tactics of some activists, it ought not to subtract the core arguments that are valid, and being opposed by a segment of Republicans and 'Christian' Evangelists who want to cancel the whole 'Trans thing'.

[Stavros]

Is this the 1st Amendment in action?

Montana GOP Bars Trans Lawmaker (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/montana-gop-bars-trans-lawmaker-190837333.html)

[Luke Warm]

Drag queens putting on sexually suggestive shows in front of kids.

So you think parents are bringing their children to sex shows, for example at the Public Library? If not, where are these sex shows taking place? You seem to think it’s a major issue for society, so you should be able to explain your comment further.


For example I imagine if we dug into the recent crime statistics, I would be willing to bet the soft on crime policies pushed recently by the Left has hurt the trans community (i.e., they became the victims of crime more often because of the out of control conditions in many of our major cities).

Please do “dig into the recent crime statistics” so that you can learn something… you’ll discover that crime in the US has been declining steadily since peaks in the 1970s and 1990s. This includes your imaginary crime waves in the big cities. You can start with a 2 second Google search. Where do you get your information? I’d bet you are one of these “I avoid mainstream news sources” goofballs.

Also, LMFAO at the “more or less equal” comment. This is like saying “slightly pregnant”. There is no halfway. People either have equal protection or they do not.

[natina]

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?
By Sharon James

Introduction
[1]
No-one can ignore the current demands for ‘transsexual rights’.

Both the UK and Scottish Governments are expected to consult in the coming months on making ‘changing sex’ as easy as buying a TV licence.

Our instinctive reaction may be to assume that the demand for ‘transsexual (or transgender) rights’ is mainly about protecting a tiny minority of troubled people from unfair discrimination. But, in reality, the underlying ideology of ‘gender identity’ is toxic. Ultimately, it aims to legally eliminate male and female sex distinctions.[2]

This ideology is now promoted in primary schools. The Gender Fairy, a story written for four-year-olds, says: ‘Only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No-one can tell you’.[3] The author hopes that this book will mean that ‘Some children will realise their true identity is not the gender they were assigned at birth, and will choose to make a social transition to live as their true gender.’[4]

Definitions
Throughout history there have been cases of (mostly) men who cross-dress for erotic stimulation, sometimes known as transvestites (the word was first coined in 1910).[5] This condition is not to be equated with transsexualism. Nor should homosexuality be confused with transsexualism. And the exceedingly rare biological intersex conditions are not to be confused with transsexualism either.[6]

Transsexuals are people who are biologically male or female (not intersex) but who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex. What causes this condition? Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship in the UK writes:

‘The mechanisms leading to transsexuality are incompletely understood but genetic, neurodevelopmental and psychosocial factors probably all contribute. Various theories exist and, as in the debate about homosexuality, their proponents tend to favour either nature (biology) or nurture (upbringing) … It may well be that the causes are multifactorial and the combinations come from both nature and nurture.’[7]

How common is this condition? ‘Gender Recognition Certificates’ are the mechanism in the United Kingdom for someone changing their legal sex. According to the most recent figures, just over 4,500 have been granted since 2005.[8]

True gender dysphoria is very rare. In 2016, K J Zucker et al wrote in the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology that, although ‘estimates vary widely’, ‘prevalence studies conclude that fewer than 1 in 10,000 adult natal males and 1 in 30,000 adult natal females experience [gender dysphoria]’.[9]

From the 1930s onwards, medical advances enabled doctors to ‘treat’ this condition by means of hormonal and surgical interventions.[10] It is possible, using hormone treatments and surgery, to transform a man into someone who looks like a woman and vice versa. The phrase ‘sex-change surgery’ is often used, but it is deceptive. No amount of surgery can truly change a man into a woman, or a woman into a man. But appearance can be changed quite effectively. And names can be changed very easily. An increasing number of countries have legislated to enable a complete identity change, offering changes to birth certificates and other documentation.

Since the 1980s, as the cause of transsexuals has been taken up as the supposed last frontier of civil rights, there has been a deliberate conflation of those who have intersex conditions and those with other forms of what is described as ‘gender variance’, including the desire to cross-dress. The umbrella term ‘transgender’ has come to be preferred as a way of including all the different ways people experience or live out their ‘gender identity’ when there is any felt incongruence with their biological sex. The term transgender can imply an acceptance of ‘gender fluidity’ (the belief that it is inherently oppressive to divide people into two binary categories). In fact, the notion of ‘gender fluidity’ is a direct contradiction of the idea of ‘transsexuality’ – which involves a change of identity from one ‘binary category’ to the other.

Where did all this come from?

The origins of Gender Theory
Certainly some ideas around masculinity and femininity are socially constructed. And of course, different men and women have a multiplicity of different gifts, aptitudes, and preferences. People do not all necessarily fit in with cultural stereotypes associated with masculinity and femininity at any given time. None of which proves that our fundamental understanding of humanity as male and female is socially constructed. But that is the central claim of gender theory.

Where and when did the concept of a division between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ arise?

Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895) was a German doctor and campaigner for homosexual rights. He advanced the theory of ‘a female soul in a man’s body’ in order to argue the case that homosexuality was innate (and should not be penalised).[11] At this time, the phrase ‘sexual inversion’ was used by sexologists such as Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) to refer to homosexuals.[12] Male ‘inverts’ were thought to have a ‘feminine soul in a male body’. This was the beginning of the idea that biological sex could be divided from the ‘gendered experience’.

The treatment of transsexualism
Continues

More below by clicking on link/url

https://reformation-today.org/articles-of-interest/what-is-the-transgender-agenda-and-how-should-christians-respond/


So far, neither mildcigar or anyone else has bothered to defined what the "radical trans agenda" is. I suspect that's because there is no such thing, and that mildcigar and his co-ideologists are just using this emotion-packed word (radical) to rile folks up. And "agenda" -- this implies that trans-people and those who respect them have a (hidden) agenda: there's this secret plot to -- what? Again, an emotion-bearing word with no actual meaning.

[Paladin]

Never liked it - it gave me headaches, but AB's idiocy hasn't helped them at all

[holzz]

what fucking NONSENSE.

If a trans person advertised butter/margarine, oh no, cis people don't eat spreads! HOW DARE YOU!!
what if it were sports shoes? or tennis rackets? or cars? or umbrellas? Or package holidays? or five star hotels??

Oh no, it will stop the masses being trainers, rackets, cars, umbrellas, package holidays and expensive hotels cos a TRANS PERSON ADVERTISED THEM.

People will go to any length to promote bigotry!

[Paladin]

AB has dramatically succeeded in selling significantly LESS beer as a result of their ad payments to Dylan.
As for me it didn't alter my buying habits at all, I haven't bought an AB beer (or wannabee light beer) in many many years.

[holzz]

AB has dramatically succeeded in selling significantly LESS beer as a result of their ad payments to Dylan.
As for me it didn't alter my buying habits at all, I haven't bought an AB beer (or wannabee light beer) in many many years.

then this proves the issue is bigotry. these customers opposed WHO was promoting their beer.

[diddyboponTOP]

I don't drink anyway I'm Italian Give Me a Percocet and Xanax both which I have scripts for and I'm fine

[luvzbig1s]

Its just something that the right can latch on to to scare their base seeing as how they don't have any policies to offer

[Luke Warm]

Its just something that the right can latch on to to scare their base seeing as how they don't have any policies to offer

They can’t campaign on a record of legislative accomplishments, because they are terrible at governing. Remember “repeal and replace Obamacare” it’s been over 10 years now, and nobody knows what the right wants to do about health care. Ask 10 different Republicans and you’ll get 10 different answers. So they have to resort to scaring people into voting for them. Gay Marriage was a bust, it turned out civilization was not actually destroyed, so they are taking the next logical step and targeting trans people because of their recent increased visibility. Based on the last midterm elections that will probably be a bust again in 2024, but as PT Barnum once said, nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. If they voted for Trump then anything is possible. More than half of Americans believe in angels, so we are not the smartest people in the world.

[Luke Warm]

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?

What is the Transgender Agenda, and how should Christians respond?
By Sharon James

Introduction
[1]
No-one can ignore the current demands for ‘transsexual rights’.

Both the UK and Scottish Governments are expected to consult in the coming months on making ‘changing sex’ as easy as buying a TV licence.

I could have stopped reading this garbage article after this introduction. And this article is supposed to inform Christians about transgender issues, well that might explain some of the confusion and panic we see.


Our instinctive reaction may be to assume that rights’ is mainly about protecting a tiny minority of troubled people from unfair discrimination. But, in reality, the underlying ideology of ‘gender identity’ is toxic. Ultimately, it aims to legally eliminate male and female sex distinctions.

Utter bullshit.


This ideology is now promoted in primary schools. The Gender Fairy, a story written for four-year-olds, says: ‘Only you know whether you are a boy or a girl. No-one can tell you’.[3] The author hopes that this book will mean that ‘Some children will realise their true identity is not the gender they were assigned at birth, and will choose to make a social transition to live as their true gender.’[4]

Ah, so that’s one book, that certainly proves something! However, four year olds are not old enough for primary school, so the story already unravels. I wonder how many primary schools actually carry this book? Any?


The umbrella term ‘transgender’ has come to be preferred as a way of including all the different ways people experience or live out their ‘gender identity’ when there is any felt incongruence with their biological sex.

Wrong. This whole article is filled with incorrect and outdated terminology and information (discussing “sex change operations” and including crossdressing in the discussion, for example). That it’s intended to teach Christians about transgender issues is a fucking joke.

Please don’t quote articles that make people dumber.

[filghy2]

The reason you got Naziism was that things got too out of control in the Weimar republic. When they start adding a bunch of zeros to the currency, then authoritarian regimes start to look attractive to your average Joe.

Germans turned to fascism after losing WWI, massive hyperinflation and the Great Depression, so at least they had the 'excuse' of real hardships.

You and most Republicans seem to be willing to condone authoritarianism after what are, in comparison, relatively minor inconveniences. I'm willing to bet that your comfortable existence has been affected only marginally by the things you complain about. Your fears seem to be mostly based on imaginary scares stoked by right-wing media - eg the out of control crime that isn't supported by the data.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

If you object to my saying you condone authoritarianism, how else would you characterise being willing to vote for a man who tried to overturn the election result, treats the law with contempt and threatens retribution if he is reelected?

Excuse the belated response, but I've been away from the site for a few weeks.

[Stavros]

When this thread began, it concerned a Trans American being used as part of an advertising campaign for one of Budweiser's drinks. It has morphed in the US into a 'weapon' in the war that is being waged against all things Trans, from Trans Children, to Drag Acts, to medical and cultural issues which politicians often don't, and don't want to understand. In the UK this media exposure has meant that a general public which I doubt is very well informed on the subject has mixed but often negative views of aspects of Trans life-

"The Ipsos LGBT+ Pride 2023 survey finds that, despite a majority thinking transgender people face discrimination, support for gender-affirming measures is mixed, with support for such measures in Britain among the lowest of all countries surveyed."
Two in three Britons think transgender people face discrimination, but support for gender-affirming measures is mixed | Ipsos (https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-pride-2023-global-survey-two-in-three-britons-think-transgender-people-face-discrimination)

There are people fighting back, in Florida, for example, but I wonder if we are living in an era when the exposure to Trans Issues has never been greater, but is also characterised by ignorance and hysteria. For example, the attacks by De Santis on 'Diversity' begs the question for someone in a country shaped by it -how does he define the term?
How Trans Organizers Are Fighting Back Against Ron DeSantis (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trans-organizers-fighting-back-against-120003291.html)

[filghy2]

This article looks at the revival of homophobia in right-wing circles. For instance, Ted Cruz has copped criticism recently for condemning Uganda's anti-LGBT laws.
https://www.vox.com/2023/6/11/23735839/pride-2023-conservative-anti-trans-lgbtq

The article argues that until recently the right seemed to be settling on a position of general acceptance of LGBT rights as long as they retained the right to discriminate on religious grounds. In other words, something like "you can do your thing as long as you leave us our own space where we can do our thing".

More recently, much of the right has shifted toward a position of aggressive push-back against LGBT acceptance, motivated by claims that it's not a natural social evolution but, rather, something that has been foisted on the population by 'woke' institutions. In other words, the slippery slope is alive and well, and LGBT acceptance threatens the 'real America' of the heterosexual family.

A good barometer for this is Trump. In the run-up to the 2016 election he made play of posing as LGBT-friendly. Now he has dropped this completely in favour of appealing the above mindset.

Now let's see if mildcigar will pop up to tell this is the fault of LGBT people for provoking a backlash and maybe they would be better off if they went back into the closet.

[holzz]

the fact this got to such a big thing shows how most Americans are to be frank. American conservatives. they seem pretty easily-led and don't really see nuance in shit.

[filghy2]

American conservatives. they seem pretty easily-led and don't really see nuance in shit.

The problem is that they've been conditioned by relentless propaganda to see anything they don't like as the result of some nefarious plot by 'them' against 'us', rather than the workings of a pluralistic society in which most people no longer accept their worldview.

They read about some marketing involving a trans person that they never even saw. They are primed to think it's part of a plot by corporations to impose 'woke' values, rather than just a marketing judgement that may be right or wrong.

Their side loses an election. Regardless of the lack of evidence, it must have been a plot to rig the outcome.

Their ex-president is charged with crimes. Regardless of the evidence, it must be witchhunt by the deep state.

A pandemic leads to restrictions and new vaccines. It must be a plot to control the population or whatever.

People want to move away from fossil fuels to stop climate change. It must be another plot to control the population.

There are many other examples.

What seems to have changed over the past several years is this willingess to see sinister conspiracies everywhere, rather than accepting that different views on ends and means are just a normal part of politics.

[Stavros]

But it also appears to be the case that sales of Bud Light have fallen and that the ad with Dylan Mulvaney may have been a cause, which makes one wonder if the use of Trans people in public campaigns is potentially damaging, that the American public might be relaxed about Trans issues, but up to a point, beyond which they don't want to know.

But as the other links also show, a new generation of young people, in the US and the UK, is drinking less so in that terms, a decline on sales might not be due to 'controversial' ad campaigns -Budweiser has been in decline for some years anyway.

"Jon Reynolds, a certified instructor in the business of craft beer at the University of Vermont, said: “Bud Light’s stumble with Dylan Mulvaney will certainly hurt their chances to take market share, but Miller Lite, Coors Light and Modelo will reap most of those rewards.” "
Bud Light loses top US beer spot after promotion with transgender influencer | Business | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/14/bud-light-loses-top-us-beer-spot-after-promotion-with-transgender-influencer#:~:text=Anheuser%2DBusch%20InBev's%20Bu d%20Light,the%20transgender%20influencer%20Dylan%2 0Mulvaney.)

Why Gen Zers are growing up sober curious - BBC Worklife (https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220920-why-gen-zers-are-growing-up-sober-curious)

Why is Gen Z drinking less? – The Hill (https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/3936579-why-is-gen-z-drinking-less/)

[filghy2]

The fall in Bud Light sales has been bigger than the general downward trend in light beers, so it seems pretty clear the boycott has hurt sales. It seems a bit circular though to manufacture a backlash through hysterical misrepresentation and then claim that this proves the marketing decision was irrational.

The point I keep coming back to is that there was no Dylan Mulvaney ad as such. She posted a video on her Instagram page after they sent her a can with her face on it, so it was obviously limited niche marketing targeted at her followers. If she was featured in a TV ad or there were Dylan Mulvaney cans in the stores these people might have a point, but neither of these things happened. But I'm sure most of the muppets getting outraged about this probably believe that is what happened.

[filghy2]

This article looks at the difficulties right-wingers face in avoiding any products tainted by wokeness. It turns out most of the alternatives have had some association with wokeness, such as sponsoring Pride events. But if you are really keen to signal your antiwoke virtue you can pay over $30 for a six-pack that will take at least a month to be delivered.

https://www.vox.com/money/23755227/target-bud-light-pride-conservative-boycott-anti-woke-lgbt

[filghy2]

As for people objecting to Dylan, I don't think a majority of them hate trans folks. I think most definitely don't like the radical trans agenda (and that I agree on them with).

This recent survey clearly contradicts your claim. 84 per cent of Republicans polled think it is morally unacceptable to be transgender, up from 76 per cent in 2021. These are not otherwise tolerant people who are just objecting to some radical trans agenda - they object to their very existence.

https://newrepublic.com/post/173747/republicans-winning-war-lgbtq-rights

[Fitzcarraldo]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/trans-influencer-dylan-mulvaney-responds-bud-light-backlash-rcna91899

[filghy2]

I don't think Bud Light's weak-kneed response has helped their cause. It hasn't placated the culture warriors and it's probably alienated many customers on the other side.