Playboy to Feature Its First Transgender Playmate

[techbeck]

2 hours ago, HawkMan said:

. Just like it was pointed out earlier. there are even women and men that have the chromosomes of the opposite sex.  

It is the dominant trait /chromosome that is important.  Sometimes how someone identifies does not match the physical form.  But a guy who used to be a woman, is still a woman when you break things down. 

 

But that is just my thoughts. Trans woman wants to be called a she, that's what I'll call her. Does not matter to me. 

 

And just to add a little bit. People are too concerned about others and what is different or what they perceive is wrong. Just let people be and live your life things would be so much easier.

Edited October 23, 2017 by techbeck

[muratoner]

God forbid some men have an erection seeing a trans woman.  If she hid her gender identity and playboy published without any info, this would be "OMG!!! she's hot imma fap now", but now that we know she's trans, (some) guys are scared to death they might be attracted to her.Get over it and fap, it is ok.

[techbeck]

1 minute ago, muratoner said:

God forbid some men have an erection seeing a trans woman.  If she hid her gender identity and playboy published without any info, this would be "OMG!!! she's hot imma fap now", but now that we know she's trans, (some) guys are scared to death they might be attracted to her.Get over it and fap, it is ok.

 

Haha. I personally don't care. But I can see how some would have a problem with it. 

[adrynalyne]

10 minutes ago, muratoner said:

God forbid some men have an erection seeing a trans woman.  If she hid her gender identity and playboy published without any info, this would be "OMG!!! she's hot imma fap now", but now that we know she's trans, (some) guys are scared to death they might be attracted to her.Get over it and fap, it is ok.

Eh, have you seen him (her if you prefer)? Even if I didn’t know better, a skin bag of sticks is bleh. 

[trag3dy]

2 hours ago, -T- said:

Nothing in this thread has anything to do with being attracted to trans women, that's nowhere near the point. The point is that trans women are women.

 

Nobody gives a damn if you find them attractive or not, that is not my argument in this thread. 

Actually that kind of is what the entire thread was about. You're the one who is trying to make it about something else because you got offended by some peoples opinions.

Edited October 23, 2017 by trag3dy

[+Warwagon MVC]

I think they should call Mr Bergis and tell him the news.

[Yogurth]

This reminds me of a Marvel's failed artificial diversity push. Know your public Playboy, or crumble. If 95% of the world population is heterosexual then 95% of males are heterosexual too, this means Playboy opted for less than 5% sales comparatively. This is a wrong business move for the magazine.

[trag3dy]

1 hour ago, Yogurth said:

This reminds me of a Marvel's failed artificial diversity push. Know your public Playboy, or crumble. If 95% of the world population is heterosexual then 95% of males are heterosexual too, this means Playboy opted for less than 5% sales comparatively. This is a wrong business move for the magazine.

It's less than that, in the US it's estimated that transgender people represent less than 1% of the population (3.8% of Americans identify as LGBT with only .3% of that being transgender). The statistic probably holds globally. Of course there are some who have that estimate much higher but when you broaden the definition of gender then the population also increases accordingly.

 

Now to certain people out there I'm not saying only 1% of the population is interested in or willing to date a transgendered person though. So don't think I am.

Edited October 23, 2017 by trag3dy

[Circaflex]

@MightyJordan why don't you join the thread and add some substance to it?

[dead.cell]

1 hour ago, Yogurth said:

This reminds me of a Marvel's failed artificial diversity push. Know your public Playboy, or crumble. If 95% of the world population is heterosexual then 95% of males are heterosexual too, this means Playboy opted for less than 5% sales comparatively. This is a wrong business move for the magazine.

Whether people agree or disagree with Playboy's move, the key here is that people are talking about Playboy, in the digital age where porn is at least 1,000 times more accessible than ever before. From a marketing standpoint, this will be seen as a success. From a sales standpoint though, we'll find out...

[Memphis]

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

It can't truly ,HOWEVER I fail to see why that's anyones business but those who want to do change. Certainly that's their choice to make. I also cannot find a problem with what Playboy is doing per se. If I am told I am hateful for not being turned on by a transgender female then I will have a huge problem, but that they are in the magazine? I'll skip the page and someone out there will enjoy it.

[trag3dy]

10 minutes ago, sidroc said:

10 hours ago, DConnell said:

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

It can't truly ,HOWEVER I fail to see why that's anyones business but those who want to do change. Certainly that's their choice to make. I also cannot find a problem with what Playboy is doing per se. If I am told I am hateful for not being turned on by a transgender female then I will have a huge problem, but that they are in the magazine? I'll skip the page and someone out there will enjoy it.

It's our business because we're being told we have to accept it. And not only accept it but we have to find it attractive.

[Memphis]

It's our business because we're being told we have to accept it. And not only accept it but we have to find it attractive.

You are? I didn't realize the mainstream message was that if you are not attracted to this model that your a bigot. If that happens I am fully in agreeance (I am sure some SJW will say this, but it's certainly not mainstream). Otherwise, you sound like an evangelical conservative. Transgender hurt no one, the science is flakey, but again, none of your business.

[trag3dy]

Just now, sidroc said:

5 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

It's our business because we're being told we have to accept it. And not only accept it but we have to find it attractive.

You are? I didn't realize the mainstream message was that if you are not attracted to this model that your a bigot. If that happens I am fully in agreeance (I am sure some SJW will say this, but it's certainly not mainstream). Otherwise, you sound like an evangelical conservative. Transgender hurt no one, the science is flakey, but again, none of your business.

It might not be the mainstream message but it's certainly what some people on here are saying.

[Memphis]

It might not be the mainstream message but it's certainly what some people on here are saying.

Yeah you can safely ignore and rise above these kind of people authoritarian thought police. They are just the opposite side of the evangelical conservative coin. SJW style opinions atleast on this issue are rightly ignored (so far, I agree that it could change) by the mainstream right now.

 

[MightyJordan]

3 minutes ago, Circaflex said:

@MightyJordan why don't you join the thread and add some substance to it?

Because I wouldn't be adding anything new. @-T- and @HawkManhave already covered it pretty well, and if I jumped in earlier, it would've essentially been @muratoner's post above: 

 

 

Not so much the hiding her history bit - most trans people are upfront about that, since there's a chance not disclosing it beforehand can result in them being murdered - but I'd bet if most of us saw pictures of Ines Rau with no prior knowledge of her, they wouldn't even think she's transgender. Besides, she had SRS at the age of 16 - about 12 or 13 years ago now - so no penis to worry about, and if she had a good doctor, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference unless you were a gynaecologist.

[Memphis]

Because I wouldn't be adding anything new. [mention=5295]-T-[/mention] and [mention=69433]HawkMan[/mention]have already covered it pretty well, and if I jumped in earlier, it would've essentially been [mention=354312]muratoner[/mention]'s post above: 
[/url]  
 
Not so much the hiding her history bit - most trans people are upfront about that, since there's a chance not disclosing it beforehand can result in them being murdered - but I'd bet if most of us saw pictures of Ines Rau with no prior knowledge of her, they wouldn't even think she's transgender. Besides, she had SRS at the age of 16 - about 12 or 13 years ago now - so no penis to worry about, and if she had a good doctor, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference unless you were a gynaecologist.

As a nurse, I see hundreds of naked men and women. That body is clearly a man, facial features, even the shape of the glutes. For fun, I showed this picture to my wife with no contaxt and she immediatly asked if that was actually a man.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

15 minutes ago, sidroc said:

As a nurse, I see hundreds of naked men and women. That body is clearly a man, facial features, even the shape of the glutes. For fun, I showed this picture to my wife with no contaxt and she immediatly asked if that was actually a man.

 

@sidroc  Maybe I missed it, but what body are you referring to?

[Memphis]

[mention=38564]sidroc[/mention]  Maybe I missed it, but what body are you referring to?

Ine Rau, the transgender models Playboy shoot pictures.

[wakjak]

48 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

we're being told we have to accept it. And not only accept it but we have to find it attractive

You're an independent human being with independent thought are you not? No one is forcing you to do anything. Nor do you have to listen to the opinions of what someone on the internet says. Why take such offence? Don't want to see a trangender woman in playboy? Don't buy it, throw it in the trash if you're subscribed, skip the pages that she shows up in. There is nothing forcing you to accept this woman being in the magazine.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

@sidroc, what was the purpose of the link in your remark or is Neowin behaving badly?

 

Also not every has been blessed with viewing the nude human as frequently as yourself, but with all due respect, I don't, IMO, believe your an actual expert.  I showed a picture of Ms. Ines Rau (a more recent one, not the skin and bones one several pages back) to my brother-in-law and his son and they thought she was very hot.  When I told her she was a transgender model and she was appearing in Playboy, they both agreed they wouldn't have known.  People are going to see things differently.  I did like your story though, my wife thought she was beautiful and still thought so after I told her the she was transgender.   

 

Different strokes for different folks.  Playboy's testing the waters perhaps, pushing the edge, whether it works for them, time and their customers will tell.

[Memphis]

[mention=38564]sidroc[/mention], what was the purpose of the link in your remark or is Neowin behaving badly?  

Also not every has been blessed with viewing the nude human as frequently as yourself, but with all due respect, I don't, IMO, believe your an actual expert.  I showed a picture of Ms. Ines Rau (a more recent one, not the skin and bones one several pages back) to my brother-in-law and his son and they thought she was very hot.  When I told her she was a transgender model and she was appearing in Playboy, they both agreed they wouldn't have known.  People are going to see things differently.  I did like your story though, my wife thought she was beautiful and still thought so after I told her the she was transgender.    [emoji6]

 

Different strokes for different folks.  Playboy's testing the waters perhaps, pushing the edge, whether it works for them, time and their customers will tell.

 

No idea how that link got in their, just started using tapatalk. 

That said, your right different strokes for different folks, people have a right to not be attracted to who they do not want to be whether it be on transgender or racial lines and as long as it doesnt extend past their own sexual prwference is neither racist nor transphobic. But I do agree with you that playboy featuring them is a non story and no ones business. Skip the page if your not attracted. I will confess my wife is also in healthcare and it probably contributes to a more immediate recognition.

 

 

[+Raze Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, sidroc said:

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

[mention=38564]sidroc[/mention], what was the purpose of the link in your remark or is Neowin behaving badly?
 
Also not every has been blessed with viewing the nude human as frequently as yourself, but with all due respect, I don't, IMO, believe your an actual expert.  I showed a picture of Ms. Ines Rau (a more recent one, not the skin and bones one several pages back) to my brother-in-law and his son and they thought she was very hot.  When I told her she was a transgender model and she was appearing in Playboy, they both agreed they wouldn't have known.  People are going to see things differently.  I did like your story though, my wife thought she was beautiful and still thought so after I told her the she was transgender.   
 
Different strokes for different folks.  Playboy's testing the waters perhaps, pushing the edge, whether it works for them, time and their customers will tell.

No idea how that link got in their, just started using tapatalk.

 

Thanks.  I'm  having trouble quoting and posting.  Doesn't upload the post and the edit screen just goes blank when I click submit reply.  <shrug>

 

edit - now it seems to work...  hmm....??

[The Evil Overlord]

6 hours ago, domboy said:

If left to nature there is no trans anything (in humans anyway), regardless of what a person thinks they are or should be. That's the cold hard science part.

But there is a documented history of women who are known to have been born with a penis...

 

6 hours ago, domboy said:

More on topic, maybe Playboy should have put out a subscriber survey to judge what their regular paying customers want? Because as other's have said, those are really the opinion that matters in this case.

The trouble with this is basic human nature of accountability, yes, we can all agree with one another in public, but when accountability is taken out of the equation, the likelihood of the vote being a resounding 'No' is almost guaranteed, thus changing nothing.
I believe changes happen, regardless of this particular circumstance, (Like being a homosexual in the 1970's > today) it's a little more accepted (outside of the all out bigotry of facebook trolls) but they had one hell of a fight to get some form of acceptance.

To me, this might be accepted in the future, and no second thought given, but they have to get there first.

[Memphis]

The trouble with this is basic human nature of accountability, yes, we can all agree with one another in public, but when accountability is taken out of the equation, the likelihood of the vote being a resounding 'No' is almost guaranteed, thus changing nothing.

I believe changes happen, regardless of this particular circumstance, (Like being a homosexual in the 1970's > today) it's a little more accepted (outside of the all out bigotry of facebook trolls) but they had one hell of a fight to get some form of acceptance.

To me, this might be accepted in the future, and no second thought given, but they have to get there first.

Women born with a penis? You do mean seriouse chromosomal abnormalities I would imagine. Please cite, seriously I'm interested in it medically. I think you will find that being born with a penis all but guarantees a Y chromosome, or a Chromosome mosaic.