Covergirl chooses a boy to be "covergirl" and people are angry

[Azadina]

A boy is a man, no matther what he does to change his look to be a girl. At the end of the day, he, remains a boy. Like it or not. You are born a male, therefore you remain male forevermore, untill the day you die, and maybe you can reincarnate as a female.

Try arguing that to the Nature, Mother Nature would laugh at you.

Would you want to try explaining Internet to mother nature? Your clothes? Infact, why not live in a cave the mother nature made for you? Are you ungrateful for her gifts?

[Deleted]

He looks like a f*cking twat.
I've got nothing against the company using male models to promote their product. If you want to wear makeup, regardless of gender, then all power to you.
but that guy really does look like a f*cking tosser.

[Valstorm Warsong]

He's not a girl, so I understand why people are angry. The whole thing is pretty cringy, and covergirl is most likely doing it for publicity.

[Deleted]

Would you want to try explaining Internet to mother nature? Your clothes? Infact, why not live in a cave the mother nature made for you? Are you ungrateful for her gifts?

Are you trying to argue that the electrical impulses that are the internet are not natural? That fabrics aren't natural? Affecting your environment is entirely natural and something all living creatures do.

[Azadina]

Are you trying to argue that the electrical impulses that are the internet are not natural? That fabrics aren't natural? Affecting your environment is entirely natural and something all living creatures do.

Internet doesn't exist as provided by nature naturally. It's why all the nature arguments are completely stupid. If you only use what is given as is, then you won't have much at all. The moment you manipulate things, your argument falls flat.

[Deleted]

Internet doesn't exist as provided by nature naturally. It's why all the nature arguments are completely stupid. If you only use what is given as is, then you won't have much at all. The moment you manipulate things, your argument falls flat.

What is provided by nature naturally? Humans are provided by nature naturally and what we do is then by extent also natural. I'm just saying your narrow definition of natural is arbitrary and silly, I'm not arguing on the side of "you're born a male blah blah".

[Azadina]

What is provided by nature naturally? Humans are provided by nature naturally and what we do is then by extent also natural. I'm just saying your narrow definition of natural is arbitrary and silly, I'm not arguing on the side of "you're born a male blah blah".

Any other definition for the geniouses using the nature argument makes literally zero sense. If you argue something "isn't natural" Then it pretty much has to mean you can't find it in the nature without manipulation. And the minute you manipulate something from it's "natural" form, it's literally no different than manipulating something else, such as humans.

What's your point exactly? To argue for sake of arguing?

[Radaney]

Seems like a pointless attempt at publicity.

[Sunseeker]

My only issue is that every photo I have seen of him pretty much screams "I want to be feminine". Hell, the first picture I saw of him, I wasn't actually sure he was a him.

Pretty much, it doesn't really feel like they've chosen a guy, it feels like they've chosen a slightly masculine woman.

[Deleted]

Any other definition for the geniouses using the nature argument makes literally zero sense. If you argue something "isn't natural" Then it pretty much has to mean you can't find it in the nature without manipulation. And the minute you manipulate something from it's "natural" form, it's literally no different than manipulating something else, such as humans.

What's your point exactly? To argue for sake of arguing?

You never make a human chromosomally female though. At least not with current methods. So one could carry that argument as to why someone born male will never be female if one wants.

My point is your definition of natural is shite and you're putting words into other people's mouths as evidenced by your "geniuses" argument. So my arguing here is about as meaningful as yours.

[Felnoire]

Dunno why people are angry, not their choice who goes on the cover of a magazine. Naturally feminine or not, Covergirl's choice to put the fellow on the cover for whatever reason they want to put them on it. No reason to be angry over it, so it's a dude who looks feminine, their choice to be that way. Freedom, Liberty, and all that jazz, they wanna be that way good for them.
As for the statement of it being a pointless attempt a publicity, that's all magazines are. Everything about them is to generate publicity in order to sell themselves, so kinda magazines doing what magazines are meant to do. So even more a non story than it already was, but people have to make mountains out of mole hills. It's likely tied to a sense of insecurity that drives them to rant and rave at anything that isn't the way they want it to be, oh well keeps trolls with a collection of easy targets I suppose.

[Azadina]

You never make a human chromosomally female though. At least not with current methods. So one could carry that argument as to why someone born male will never be female if one wants.

My point is your definition of natural is shite and you're putting words into other people's mouths as evidenced by your "geniuses" argument. So my arguing here is about as meaningful as yours.

Oh, so now you mix nature argument with chromosomes? What does human chromosomes have to do with anything else nature related? As to anyone else before wanting to go down the chromosome argument, I'd suggest looking up what variations exist. Wasn't so simple, was it?

Not that I truly expect you to bother. Willful ignorance is a thing.

Edit. Why don't you actually cut the crap and come to the real point. You don't like women being able to transition to man, or vise versa. Trying to come up with irrelevant justifications are extremely poor way to hide your real point. Always the same with people like you.

[Revi]

Put a weird boy on their magazine and got tons of free PR and social points. Sounds like a smart move.

[Deleted]

Freak would be a little closer to the truth than boy. Look at the state of it.

Just because he doesn't look like your average stereotypical boy? That doesn't really make sense.

[sethman75]

Covergirl? Isnt that sexist??

[Tikaru]

This doesn't impact me in any way, so I couldn't care less.

Do people really have nothing else going on in their lives that a magazine cover upsets them?

[Snes]

If we're to judge makeup the same way we judge art, those eyebrows look cartoonishly big. Also not big on the nose ring. I don't care that it's a guy.

#subjectiveopinion

[Deleted]

Do people really have nothing else going on in their lives that a magazine cover upsets them?

At the end of the day, it's people being angry about something they don't like, on a magazine they will (probably) never read.

Also not big on the nose ring.

Indeed. Regardless of gender, nose rings just never look good. :|

[PaterMDx]

bwahaha that dude is ugly xD
To Topic: THats a shame, they show a ugly tranny instead of a REAL Woman, shameful display.

[Azadina]

bwahaha that dude is ugly xD
To Topic: THats a shame, they show a ugly tranny instead of a REAL Woman, shameful display.

The only shameful display is bigot flaming on low post burner account. The man in the picture is not even trans.