Playboy to Feature Its First Transgender Playmate

[The Evil Overlord]

1 hour ago, trag3dy said:

I think that just like when they tried to go non-nude it's not gonna make the statement they want it to. Alienating your core audience hasn't been a good idea since pretty much forever.

True, but the 'core' demographic changes just at times change, and mags like playboy tend to become less appealing as a purchase to the older clientele over time,...
Not saying this IS the case, just an argument could be made both for and against

[DeusProto]

5 hours ago, trag3dy said:

And for those that have/had subscriptions to the magazine? They get it weather they want it or not and they paid well in advance, again, if they wanted it or not.

Perhaps they should see it as an opportunity to broaden their horizons and be more accepting.

I'm sure several decades ago when 'soft core' pornography magazines first featured non-caucasian models and especially two or more models where each was of a different race engaged in a milder act such as kissing  there was this exact same kind of reaction. People got over it and now hardly anyone bats at eye at such things.                         
                               

The same thing will happen with this. Civilization trends more progressive as time goes on. There are sometimes temporary setbacks, but when averaged out as a trend line over a century progressivism trends upward.

Once the baby boomer generation is incapacitated or deceased, there will be a sharp turn in  U.S. society once that influence is lost. Each new generation is more progressive than the last.                          
                               

Each new generation -- at least in the U.S. and many parts of Europe -- people are increasingly secular as well and are either atheist or agnostic. A lot of the intolerance of transsexuals comes from a place of religious fervor - particularly of Judeo-Christian pentecostal, baptist, other extremist evangelical sects flavors. The 'religious right'  won't always remain influential in our society.

Edited October 23, 2017 by DeusProto

[adrynalyne]

11 hours ago, DeusProto said:

Perhaps they should see it as an opportunity to broaden their horizons and be more accepting.

I'm sure several decades ago when 'soft core' pornography magazines first featured non-caucasian models and especially two or more models where each was of a different race engaged in a milder act such as kissing  there was this exact same kind of reaction. People got over it and now hardly anyone bats at eye at such things.                         
                               

The same thing will happen with this. Civilization trends more progressive as time goes on. There are sometimes temporary setbacks, but when averaged out as a trend line over a century progressivism trends upward.

Once the baby boomer generation is incapacitated or deceased, there will be a sharp turn in  U.S. society once that influence is lost. Each new generation is more progressive than the last.                          
                               

Each new generation -- at least in the U.S. and many parts of Europe -- people are increasingly secular as well and are either atheist or agnostic. A lot of the intolerance of transsexuals comes from a place of religious fervor - particularly of Judeo-Christian pentecostal, baptist, other extremist evangelical sects flavors. The 'religious right'  won't always remain influential in our society.

They bought the magazine for women, yet should broaden their horizons by looking at genetic men? Seems to me they wouldn’t have bought the subscription if that’s what they wanted.  This is not something like color of skin, not in the least. The only one mentioning religion is you, ironically enough.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Andrew

[HawkMan]

On 21.10.2017 at 0:44 AM, warwagon said:

Let's be honest, Playboy hasn't known for its articles, it's masturbation material. It's the kind of thing they have in sperm banks to help a man donate their sperm into a cup. How many guys want to buy playboy to see a man who's been surgically transformed into a woman naked? It gives the opposite effect!

 

 

Actually, they are. Playboy is actually well known for good and solid articles and they're a known place where a lot of niche authors first got their stories published, many big SciFi authors exist because of playboy.  Sure if you ask a person on the street, they'll say Playboy is a nudie mag. But look through the old free Playboay archives, and see what percentage of the magazine is actually nude pictures.

[HawkMan]

3 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

They bought the magazine for women, yet should broaden their horizons by looking at genetic men? Seems to me they wouldn’t have bought the subscription if that’s what they wanted.  This is not something like color of skin, not in the least. 

 

I can dislike posts too. It doesn’t affect anything so you have fun with that. 

1

If you didn't know she used to have a male body, and you liked the way she looked. why should it suddenly matter to you that the body used to be male ? you're not going to marry her. 

[adrynalyne]

10 hours ago, HawkMan said:

If you didn't know she used to have a male body, and you liked the way she looked. why should it suddenly matter to you that the body used to be male ? you're not going to marry her. 

So is that what Playboy is going to do then, pass him off as a genetic female? Or will they tell the truth? Either way, it’s not up to you nor me. I too, have an opinion.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Andrew

[trag3dy]

59 minutes ago, DeusProto said:

Perhaps they should see it as an opportunity to broaden their horizons and be more accepting.

I'm sure several decades ago when 'soft core' pornography magazines first featured non-caucasian models and especially two or more models where each was of a different race engaged in a milder act such as kissing  there was this exact same kind of reaction. People got over it and now hardly anyone bats at eye at such things.                         
                               

The same thing will happen with this. Civilization trends more progressive as time goes on. There are sometimes temporary setbacks, but when averaged out as a trend line over a century progressivism trends upward.

Once the baby boomer generation is incapacitated or deceased, there will be a sharp turn in  U.S. society once that influence is lost. Each new generation is more progressive than the last.                          
                               

Each new generation -- at least in the U.S. and many parts of Europe -- people are increasingly secular as well and are either atheist or agnostic. A lot of the intolerance of transsexuals comes from a place of religious fervor - particularly of Judeo-Christian pentecostal, baptist, other extremist evangelical sects flavors. The 'religious right'  won't always remain influential in our society.

This is all actually false. The newest generation of children by and large have more conservative leanings mostly due to the fact that liberal minded people have less children.

[HawkMan]

10 hours ago, adrynalyne said:

So is that what Playboy is going to do then, pass him off as a genetic female? Or will they tell the truth? Either way, it’s not up to you nor me. I too, have an opinion.

Did I say you couldn't? but from a purely aesthetic view, which is what the centerfold is, it doesn't matter.

 

a for genetics, she was never truly genetically male or female, she had a genetic female brain and male body.  and I'm sure the article will tell the truth.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Andrew

[DConnell Member]

7 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Did I say you couldn't? but from a purely aesthetic view, which is what the centerfold is, it doesn't matter.

 

a for genetics, she was never truly genetically male or female, she had a genetic female brain and male body.  and I'm sure the article will tell the truth.

"Genetic female brain and male body"? Are you actually suggesting that the brain developed from a different set of chromosomes from the rest of the body? 

 

Sorry, while he may have felt female emotionally, all the original equipment has the same genetic code. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by Andrew

[HawkMan]

15 minutes ago, DConnell said:

"Genetic female brain and male body"? Are you actually suggesting that the brain developed from a different set of chromosomes from the rest of the body? 

 

Sorry, while he may have felt female emotionally, all the original equipment has the same genetic code. 

Genes determine if the brain is female or male, hetero or gay. though, not some choice.  hence why they're born in the wrong body.  She didn't "feel" female emotionally. her brain told her she was female. she was always "she" with a male body. 

[margrave]

Then they'll have one with Kim Petras, and Nong Poy.

 

ugh

[Mando]

9 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

You know, folks ... never have I EVER felt more uncomfortable or unwelcome at Neowin than I do at this very moment, now that I know how a lot of you folks really feel about Transpersons.

 

/sigh ...

 

No need to show me the door. I know where it is.

 

/wave

dont go mate, lots of us here value you and your opinions.

[Mando]

15 hours ago, warwagon said:

But they prefer to perv at XY and not at XX

yes but pretty much all "glamour models" have fake augmented boobies, so your not really. Heck lots get bum work done too....like wth! 

[DConnell Member]

10 hours ago, warwagon said:

To me, it's just the principle of the thing. We are talking about Playboy. I have no problem with a transgender person being featured in a publication but why playboy? Besides the articles (which apparently are amazing), it's a magazine men have been buying to look at women who were born with the XY chromosome.  They don't want to see a dude converted into a female. If they wanted to see that they would be buying a completely different magazine.

Actually, female is XX, and male is XY. Your point is still correct of course, but you've got the chromosome pairs switched. 

[+John. Subscriber¹]

I guess I'm a tad more progressive than some members on here. 

 

I see this as nothing more than a Challenge ######

[DConnell Member]

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Genes determine if the brain is female or male, hetero or gay. though, not some choice.  hence why they're born in the wrong body.  She didn't "feel" female emotionally. her brain told her she was female. she was always "she" with a male body. 

How can the same genome code male for the rest of the body but female for the brain?

[Steven P. Administrators]

Is everyone still offended?

 

 

 

[+Warwagon MVC]

1 hour ago, DConnell said:

Actually, female is XX, and male is XY. Your point is still correct of course, but you've got the chromosome pairs switched. 

I got it off Wikipedia  ... looks like they got it wrong. So much for that source.

[Dick Montage]

10 hours ago, trag3dy said:

You would think that would be the obviously solution if there was demand for such a thing. But my guess is that there isn't. Or at least they don't represent enough of the market (with less than 1% representation in the general population) for them to make it feasible.

And you could argue that sales figures of this issue could be used to gauge that demand...

[DConnell Member]

8 minutes ago, warwagon said:

I got it off Wikipedia  ... looks like they got it wrong. So much for that source.

That passage you copied is actually talking about abnormal instances - "chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex" - so opposite the normal.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Just now, DConnell said:

That passage you copied is actually talking about abnormal instances - "chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex" - so opposite the normal.

Wellllllll ######. lol

[dead.cell]

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Genes determine if the brain is female or male, hetero or gay. though, not some choice.  hence why they're born in the wrong body.  She didn't "feel" female emotionally. her brain told her she was female. she was always "she" with a male body. 

Look guy, I don't mind if people want to change their physical appearance, but when you start getting into having a "female brain" in the wrong body, without any sort of scientific data, you really start to lose credibility. Trans people are still people, but why we need to go as far as manipulating science to fit the narrative is beyond me. Personally, I find it bewildering that we can have a national science day, talk about about the realities of climate change, yet drop science when it comes to basic level biology...

 

The whole problem with all of this is that men do not know what it is like to be a woman, and women do not know what it's like to be a man. Making stupid assessments of gender "identity" with stereotypes is a complete injustice to what men and women actually think, feel, and endure. That's not even just my opinion either, but a matter of fact.

 

I don't want to drop the "I have a trans friend" card, but contrary to the way the media behaves, they're not really trying to shove it in your face either. In fact, many would consider it to be a very private personal matter. So yeah, it's entirely possible to be open and accepting, while wanting to see real women at the strip club or in the magazine you've subscribed to for years. If you want something different, there are plenty of other outlets, just like when you go to Vegas. Finding what peaks your interest isn't even hard these days.

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, DConnell said:

How can the same genome code male for the rest of the body but female for the brain?

Genes isn't one thing that says "make man that looks like this". it's a whole bunch of codes that says what is what and where it goes, sometimes it messes up. 

30 minutes ago, dead.cell said:

Look guy, I don't mind if people want to change their physical appearance, but when you start getting into having a "female brain" in the wrong body, without any sort of scientific data, you really start to lose credibility. Trans people are still people, but why we need to go as far as manipulating science to fit the narrative is beyond me. Personally, I find it bewildering that we can have a national science day, talk about about the realities of climate change, yet drop science when it comes to basic level biology...

 

The whole problem with all of this is that men do not know what it is like to be a woman, and women do not know what it's like to be a man. Making stupid assessments of gender "identity" with stereotypes is a complete injustice to what men and women actually think, feel, and endure. That's not even just my opinion either, but a matter of fact.

 

I don't want to drop the "I have a trans friend" card, but contrary to the way the media behaves, they're not really trying to shove it in your face either. In fact, many would consider it to be a very private personal matter. So yeah, it's entirely possible to be open and accepting, while wanting to see real women at the strip club or in the magazine you've subscribed to for years. If you want something different, there are plenty of other outlets, just like when you go to Vegas. Finding what peaks your interest isn't even hard these days.

Scientifically, scientists agree that sexuality and wrong gender are both in the genes , and not environmental and certainly not a "choice". 

[adrynalyne]

7 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Did I say you couldn't? but from a purely aesthetic view, which is what the centerfold is, it doesn't matter.

 

a for genetics, she was never truly genetically male or female, she had a genetic female brain and male body.  and I'm sure the article will tell the truth. 

 

calling other people names is what makes your opinion less valid. not your opinion itself.

LOL, that’s not how chromosomes work.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Andrew

[adrynalyne]

1 hour ago, Steven P. said:

Is everyone still offended?

 

 

 

I can only speak for myself, but I’m not offended. I’m just not interested in this idea that views need to be pushed on others.