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

[Gemini Sunrise]

SJWs get triggered about everything these days.

I find this pretty neat. Would be interesting if makeup caught on with men in America.

Please no, it's hard enough just being clean shaven.

[Raptor With a Saber]

Covergirl is about women and that. The dude does makeup which is primarily 'now a days' female so it makes sense.

[Azadina]

Please no, it's hard enough just being clean shaven.

No mercy! Makeups and nail manicures next Once men have mastered them, we can add more ^^

It's all a slow plan to convert the whole planet into Matriarchy! Muahahahah

[Ragnarohk]

It's disgusting. Make one for gay men, don't force it upon what already exists.

What do gay men even have to do with that?

I'm gay and I would never buy that shit.

[Ryme]

I'm struggling to understand why this matters.

[Tulune]

My only opinion on the matter is he that the makeup looks horrible. If he self applied that, a makeup artist he is not.

[spinner981]

I dunno, I mean, it literally contradicts the name of the magazine. How many guys read covergirl for tips on how to do their makeup anyway? Just seems like absolutely nothing more than pandering to the current trans demographic that makes up a fraction of a percentage of the population and all the hundreds of thousands of people who vastly outnumber them that call it normal for men to want to be like women.

[Wells]

I dunno, I mean, it literally contradicts the name of the magazine. How many guys read covergirl for tips on how to do their makeup anyway? Just seems like absolutely nothing more than pandering to the current trans demographic that makes up a fraction of a percentage of the population and all the hundreds of thousands of people who vastly outnumber them that call it normal for men to want to be like women.

So two possibilities. Either you don't understand Covergirl's demographics, or Covergirl doesn't.

HMMMMMM

[spinner981]

So two possibilities. Either you don't understand Covergirl's demographics, or Covergirl doesn't.

HMMMMMM

Sure, Victoria's secret probably has an unusually large male demographic reader-base, but that probably doesn't translate to those men wanting to buy female underwear or see other men wearing it. I don't see how the same couldn't apply here, if that was the case that is. Unless of course you are implying that Covergirl had a poll in the past asking its male readers whether or not they commonly wear makeup featured in their magazine. Because I would think that because of the post you just made that you WOULD have such polling statistics. So let's see it Wells.

Unless of course you were just being pretentious, which would be totally out of character for you.

[Wells]

Sure, Victoria's secret probably has an unusually large male demographic reader-base, but that probably doesn't translate to those men wanting to buy female underwear or see other men wearing it. I don't see how the same couldn't apply here, if that was the case that is. Unless of course you are implying that Covergirl had a poll in the past asking its male readers whether or not they commonly wear makeup featured in their magazine. Because I would think that because of the post you just made that you WOULD have such polling statistics. So let's see it Wells.

Unless of course you were just being pretentious, which would be totally out of character for you.

So it was the former then. The guy is a make up artist. Women are more allowing for sexual minorities than men are as well. Seems like they understand their market just fine. Clearly better than you do, which should be no surprise.

[Moralgy]

I dunno, I mean, it literally contradicts the name of the magazine. How many guys read covergirl for tips on how to do their makeup anyway? Just seems like absolutely nothing more than pandering to the current trans demographic that makes up a fraction of a percentage of the population and all the hundreds of thousands of people who vastly outnumber them that call it normal for men to want to be like women.

1 - No one cares, you are complaining about absolutely nothing. He does good makeup, he got promoted by a makeup magazine. I look at makeup magazines to see fancy makeup, and that boy does fancy makeup amazingly. His face shape is even similar to what some women have, so it can be helpful to them.

2 - This has nothing to do with trans people, like at all, how did you fit that into your SJW nonsense?

[Gemini Soul]

I don't really see what the big deal is. He's a budding makeup artist...makes sense from that perspective.

100% agree, only ones bent out of shape are gender equality or those who think M+F only. He's a budding artist got popular and they did a cover story on him, great for him.

[Crissi]

Mkaeup artist making make up look good, which is the entire point of Covergirl regardless of gender.

This isnt shocking or even pointless. It fits their business model. I dont know too many girls who concentrate on the model, and not the amazing makeup job when it comes to makeup companies.

[shrunken]

I have a bunch of really cool Halloween tutorials planned. I have a huge list. I need to make sure they’re totally appropriate and everybody can enjoy them. Halloween is always a touchy subject.

The kid would be a total god if he prefaced his tutorial with this and then the instructions were how to apply convincing Blackface.

[starlord]

guys have been doing great things in the makeup world since forever, its not as big of a deal as it seems.

p.s. if you want to see someone who does "masculine makeup" check out wayne goss.

[LadyLisanna]

As Drag Queens would say "It ain't cover Boy"
They say this for a reason. Their make up is not thick enough for porous make skin

[Deleted]

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.

Always with the ad-hominems and "People like you" bs. I am fully aware of fragile X and klinefelter's syndrome variations on chromosomes, among others. That doesn't take away the fact that the main driver in what makes a person male or female is the hormonal makeup that is driven by chromosomes, you can alter the hormones to some extent for sure, but chromosomally, a person is still male or female apart from a few very rare mutations.

Also, are you saying that chromosomes aren't natural?

I could give two shits about whether or not people want to transition though, it doesn't affect me and thus isn't my concern, if they want to, more power to them.

- - - Updated - - -

You're contradicting yourself by saying things like the internet are natural. They're not. If something didn't exist without some kind of manipulation, it wasn't natural. You're acting like the person you quoted made this definition up on their own. Here you go



Either you contradict your own argument by saying everything is natural, including gender transitions. Or you refuse to accept the actual definition of the word "natural".

Everything is natural, gender transitions too for sure. But current transitions don't change the DNA makeup that causes a person to be male or female and thus aren't complete.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a fashion magazine, not National Geographic.

Yes, and they put a make-up artist on the front. Seems entirely reasonable to me. I don't see why anyone is up in arms over that. I'd be more concerned with the people who named Caitlyn Jenner woman of the year when she hadn't even been transitioned for a full year.

[Crissi]

Getting into transgender discussions, and what makes a gender, is explicitly not allowed so cut it out

[spinner981]

So it was the former then. The guy is a make up artist. Women are more allowing for sexual minorities than men are as well. Seems like they understand their market just fine. Clearly better than you do, which should be no surprise.

What the heck does any of this have to do with the discussion at hand exactly? Give me the statistics or polls that Covergirl is using to know that people want to see dudes in women's makeup on the front cover.

1 - No one cares, you are complaining about absolutely nothing. He does good makeup, he got promoted by a makeup magazine. I look at makeup magazines to see fancy makeup, and that boy does fancy makeup amazingly. His face shape is even similar to what some women have, so it can be helpful to them.

2 - This has nothing to do with trans people, like at all, how did you fit that into your SJW nonsense?

1. Didn't notice anywhere in my post where I was complaining, just making comments. The magazine is called Covergirl, so having a guy on the cover seems contradictory to their brand, and I question why anyone would want to see a dude in women's makeup rather than just a woman anyway.

2. Let's not be deliberately obtuse. This sort of thing is everywhere now. Being open to all sorts of 'genders' and what not, fighting the 'patriarchy'. Men don't traditionally wear women's makeup; that's just the reality. Doing this sort of things isn't an action to garner more readers because they are genuinely interested in men in women's makeup, but rather to garner more readers and higher public opinion by pandering to the idea of fluidity between the genders, ie: a man wearing makeup as if he were a woman. Or do you really see them making a decision to do this 20 years ago for the same reasons many are currently spouting as the apparent 'only reasoning' as to why they made such a decision in the first place? If it has nothing to do with the current 'gender fluid' pandering culture, then we should have expected them to do such a thing for the same reasons decades ago.

This is not me attempting to make an argument on the apparent issue of 'what makes a gender' but merely stating that such an action by Covergirl is only possible because it is being praised because we live in a culture that overtly adores and support a questioning of what makes a 'gender' and a rejection of the traditional definition of such.

[May90]

People who are "angry" at this have too much time on their hands... That said, it is a bit silly to choose a boy as a "covergirl", isn't it?