Playboy to Feature Its First Transgender Playmate

[The Evil Overlord]

3 minutes ago, techbeck said:

And who here is being a bigot?  Saying that a transgendered person not belong in PB does not make someone a bigot.  What Warwagon said, is not bigotry either.

Although not entirely related 100% related, bigotry is not exclusive to calling all women bitches or calling black people 'n' words, or Indians 'p' words...etc, most have learned to work within the system and stop just short of all out bigotry. Ok the word isn't there, but that doesn't mean the message wasn't.

[Tahaha]

4 minutes ago, -T- said:

Nobody is promoting anything other than equality. That's a ridiculous statement

I beg to differ.  While I respect people's decision's to live how they want, don't try to use this equality argument to violate the conscience of those who disagree with LGBT's practices.  Calling people bigots because they don't like or agree with a practice or belief is anything but equal.

[+Warwagon MVC]

11 minutes ago, -T- said:

Nobody is promoting anything other than equality. That's a ridiculous statement

I'm all for equality, I don't have a problem with it, equality is a great thing. When you go about it correctly. When a transgender woman gets put into a prominently heterosexual male magazine just because it features women feels like forced equality. It makes people say "Uh ...um...wait ...what!?...no!" 

[techbeck]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Overlord said:

 Ok the word isn't there, but that doesn't mean the message wasn't.

I am reading comments, that is it.  I am not going to assume someone means something as I do not have all the info needed to make that judgement.  Saying that transgendered women does not belong in a men's magazine, is not being a bigot.  Now saying a transgendered women does not need to exist and should be done away with, is being a bigot.

[dead.cell]

1 hour ago, -T- said:

Such a magazine already exists, has done so for 20 years now. 

 

This is not the first time a trans woman has appeared in Playboy, there have been others in other countries, and even some trans models go under the radar in other magazines.

 

I stand by my earlier remark, many comments on this thread are disgusting, bigoted, and archaic. How pathetic it must be to be so insecure that some pictures of a woman in a magazine are causing you to feel it's forced upon you.

 

I've been a member of this site for such a long time and i've been a sub repeatedly, and the responses in here make me unlikely to ever subscribe again.  My partner is a trans woman and I cannot support a site that clearly would not welcome her participation  

What a crock of horse manure. Your wife is free to be and date whomever she wants, and people who prefer non-trans women are entitled to their opinion just the same. It's called sexual PREFERENCE for a reason. That has zero bearing on whether or not anyone has anything against trans women or your wife. Have her come here and post if you'd like, but don't use her as a crutch for your argument like she's unwelcome when that's 100% not the case.

 

Let's do away with all the emotion and break it down to simple economics: If you don't like something, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet. If Playboy tanks because of this, it's not a sign that everyone's "bigoted", it's a sign that guys who prefer non-trans women are... I dunno, a majority of the readers? Again, there are thousands upon thousands of places where you can get your fill. If the majority of the Playboy audience decide to get their content from somewhere else, then it's just simple economics.

 

If you disagree, fine. Not sure how much more complex this topic can get, beyond speaking out of emotion.

[Circaflex]

22 minutes ago, -T- said:

We get it, you don't accept trans people are the gender they have transitioned to, this does not harm you in the slightest yet you persist with the pathetic comparisons 

Settle down -T-. No one here has said anything remotely close to that and looking through Warwagons replies, I can't seem to find that either. Sure, some of us do not find trans people attractive, nor would we consider dating a trans person, but I dont seem to recall anyone in here saying they dont accept them or they are an abomination. I feel, there are plenty of people in this thread who are accepting, however, they just aren't attracted to them. Don't take everything so personal.

[The Evil Overlord]

5 minutes ago, techbeck said:

I am reading comments, that is it.  I am not going to assume someone means something as I do not have all the info needed to make that judgement.  Saying that transgendered women does not belong in a men's magazine, is not being a bigot.  Now saying a transgendered women does not need to exist and should be done away with, is being a bigot.

Which is fair, but it doesn't take much of a stretch of one's imagination to make the leap and connect one to the other. (Kinda like what I'm doing right now.)

[-T- Member]

1 hour ago, Circaflex said:

Settle down -T-. No one here has said anything remotely close to that and looking through Warwagons replies, I can't seem to find that either. Sure, some of us do not find trans people attractive, nor would we consider dating a trans person, but I dont seem to recall anyone in here saying they dont accept them or they are an abomination. I feel, there are plenty of people in this thread who are accepting, however, they just aren't attracted to them. Don't take everything so personal.

Except DConnell said exactly that. His words were, " I just can't think of someone born male as anything other than a man" 

 

Many others in the thread have implied quite clearly that they consider the model in question and by extension, trans women, as men

[adrynalyne]

3 minutes ago, -T- said:

Except DConnell said exactly that. His words were, " I just can't think of someone born male as anything other than a man" 

 

Many others in the thread have implied quite clearly that they consider the model in question and by extension, trans women, as men

Science makes it clear that if you are born a male, you are going to remain male regardless of what you identify as or how you change your body physically and emotionally. 

I don’t have an issue with that, identify with whatever makes you feel most comfortable, but it is what it is. Genetics don’t lie. 

[techbeck]

2 minutes ago, The Evil Overlord said:

Which is fair, but it doesn't take much of a stretch of one's imagination to make the leap and connect one to the other. (Kinda like what I'm doing right now.)

I understand....but calling someone a bigot can have negative reactions.   Bigot is a name I would not call anyone unless I am 110% sure they are one.

[-T- Member]

1 hour ago, adrynalyne said:

Science makes it clear that if you are born a male, you are going to remain male regardless of what you identify as or how you change your body physically and emotionally. 

I don’t have an issue with that, identify with whatever makes you feel most comfortable, but it is what it is. Genetics don’t lie. 

Since you're clearly an expert on genetics, what's your view on those with Klinefelters syndrome or those whom are intersex?

[Circaflex]

6 minutes ago, -T- said:

Except DConnell said exactly that. His words were, " I just can't think of someone born male as anything other than a man" 

 

Many others in the thread have implied quite clearly that they consider the model in question and by extension, trans women, as men

And? That is someones opinion. That doesn't mean they find trans people gross, disgusting, abominations or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I for one feel the same as many in the thread, but that doesn't mean I hate trans people nor do I think they aren't people after all. I am just not attracted to them for reasons I have stated multiple times already in here, but I wouldn't be disrespectful towards someone because they are trans.

[+Warwagon MVC]

13 minutes ago, -T- said:

Except DConnell said exactly that. His words were, " I just can't think of someone born male as anything other than a man" 

 

Many others in the thread have implied quite clearly that they consider the model in question and by extension, trans women, as men

1

So? That's his personal opinion. Not really a mean or vicious one at that.

[adrynalyne]

4 minutes ago, -T- said:

Since you're clearly an expert on genetics, what's your view on those with Klinefelters syndrome or those whom are intersex?

So are you trying to claim that transgender men or women are genetic abnormalities now? I thought transgender men/women wasn’t a medical issue. Because what you listed are exactly that. 

 

Heheh. 

[DConnell Member]

4 minutes ago, -T- said:

Except DConnell said exactly that. His words were, " I just can't think of someone born male as anything other than a man" 

 

Many others in the thread have implied quite clearly that they consider the model in question and by extension, trans women, as men

And my personal feelings affect the validity of your feelings and relationship how, exactly? I haven't attacked you for being married to a trans woman. Nor have I said they shouldn't exist. I stated that I personally am not attracted to them because I see them as their original biological gender.

 

I also stated that I would treat someone I knew to be trans with the same respect I do everyone else. Life isn't black & white. It isn't total agreement or "that person has no right to exist". It is possible to disagree with someone's lifestyle and still treat them with respect and compassion.

[-T- Member]

1 hour ago, warwagon said:

So? That's his personal opinion? Not really a mean or vicious one at that.

 

1 hour ago, Circaflex said:

And? That is someones opinion. That doesn't mean they find trans people gross, disgusting, abominations or whatever it is you are trying to imply. I for one feel the same as many in the thread, but that doesn't mean I hate trans people nor do I think they aren't people after all. I am just not attracted to them for reasons I have stated multiple times already in here, but I wouldn't be disrespectful towards someone because they are trans.

No invalidating someone's identity isn't mean or vicious, obviously 

59 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

So are you trying to claim that transgender men or women are genetic abnormalities now? I thought transgender men/women wasn’t a medical issue. Because what you listed are exactly that. 

 

Heheh. 

Nobody said it wasn't medical, it's clearly a medical issue. Where on earth did you get the opinion that it wasn't?

[adrynalyne]

Just now, -T- said:

 

No invalidating someone's identity isn't mean or vicious, obviously 

Identity and biology can be mutually exclusive. Sorry bro, science.

[-T- Member]

1 hour ago, DConnell said:

And my personal feelings affect the validity of your feelings and relationship how, exactly? I haven't attacked you for being married to a trans woman. Nor have I said they shouldn't exist. I stated that I personally am not attracted to them because I see them as their original biological gender.

 

I also stated that I would treat someone I knew to be trans with the same respect I do everyone else. Life isn't black & white. It isn't total agreement or "that person has no right to exist". It is possible to disagree with someone's lifestyle and still treat them with respect and compassion.

If you refuse to accept their identity, you are not treating them with respect. It's not rocket science

[Emn1ty]

Just now, -T- said:

Since you're clearly an expert on genetics, what's your view on those with Klinefelters syndrome or those whom are intersex?

There are exceptions to everything, but anecdotes aren't a very sound argument. These people aren't who we are talking about and have their own needs. Or do you think the vast, vast, vast majority of the world should start altering their sexual preferences to accommodate these rare exceptions?

 

Also, appeal to authority.

1 minute ago, -T- said:

 

No invalidating someone's identity isn't mean or vicious, obviously 

If someone not being attracted to you invalidates your identity, you are putting far too much stake in what others think of you.

[Circaflex]

4 minutes ago, -T- said:

 

No invalidating someone's identity isn't mean or vicious, obviously 

I feel as if we will go no where with this, you have something personal vested in this and are only seeing it one way. Not once has anyone in here been derogatory, vicious or downright rude. I am sorry if we offend you, or your girlfriend, for not being attracted to trans people. It is just not my cup of tea, but I wont put down someone who finds trans people attractive or has a relationship with them. It is somewhat offensive that you feel the need to label anyone with differentiating views, a bigot or not accepting of a trans person. I might not find them attractive, but that doesn't make them less of a person. I wish you the best in your endeavor, but I think it would benefit you to look at what some of us are saying with open ears.

[dead.cell]

1 minute ago, Circaflex said:

I feel as if we will go no where with this, you have something personal vested in this and are only seeing it one way. Not once has anyone in here been derogatory, vicious or downright rude. I am sorry if we offend you, or your girlfriend, for not being attracted to trans people. It is just not my cup of tea, but I wont put down someone who finds trans people attractive or has a relationship with them. It is somewhat offensive that you feel the need to label anyone with differentiating views, a bigot or not accepting of a trans person. I might not find them attractive, but that doesn't make them less of a person. I wish you the best in your endeavor, but I think it would benefit you to look at what some of us are saying with open ears.

/thread right here.

[-T- Member]

1 hour ago, Circaflex said:

I feel as if we will go no where with this, you have something personal vested in this and are only seeing it one way. Not once has anyone in here been derogatory, vicious or downright rude. I am sorry if we offend you, or your girlfriend, for not being attracted to trans people. It is just not my cup of tea, but I wont put down someone who finds trans people attractive or has a relationship with them. It is someone offensive that you feel the need to label anyone with differentiating views, a bigot or not accepting of a trans person. I might not find them attractive, but that doesn't make them less of a person. I wish you the best in your endeavor, but I think it would benefit you to look at what some of us are saying with open ears.

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. 

[Circaflex]

2 minutes ago, -T- said:

The point is that trans women are women.

And this is where we disagree. If that makes me a bigot in your opinion, there isn't much I can say to change your mind. If you find that offensive, I can't really help you with that.

 

Just now, HawkMan said:

She's a woman who happened to have been born in a male body that her brain can't accept.

See my above response. I disagree with this and that is all.

 

[HawkMan]

1 hour ago, Circaflex said:

Correct, but she is the first playmate being featured in Playboy.

 

She isn't a woman, she was born a man. That is the big discussion around this. Essentially it is being forced, Playboys is a gentleman's magazine that has catered to heterosexual males, the model may have similar features of a woman now, but the model was born a male. The big discussion seems to be, why wasn't there another magazine created to cater to those who enough trans models? It could still be under the Playboy publishing, but could be a different magazine entirely.

 

Whoa now, no one has said anything remotely close to that. We are talking about a man, who now looks like a woman, being featured in a magazine geared towards heterosexual males. Sorry we don't have the same tastes, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. I don't see anywhere in this thread where that was said.

She's a woman who happened to have been born in a male body that her brain can't accept.

[domboy]

48 minutes ago, techbeck said:

I doubt there would be much of a problem with a woman being featured on a transgender magazine.  Normal males/females (lack of a better work, no disrespect intended) are accepted in society and the world.  Transgendered, no so much and this is where the main issue lies.  Acceptance.

Acceptance of what?? That a transgender person is a human being and should be treated with decency and respect? Done.

 

That a transgender woman is the same as a someone born a woman? No. Same with if somebody tried to tell me fake boobs are the same as real ones. Um, no. I don't really care what people want to be or make their bodies into, but don't tell me that I have to pretend it is fundamentally the same, or that it is natural. 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. That is really my only beef with the current push for "trans acceptance". I don't see a push for mere acceptance, I see a push for ignoring science and telling us the two are one and the same (see sports). And I think that is part of the push-back in some areas of the culture... stop telling us how to think. And stop ignoring science!

 

And I have no problems with people that are into trans people, such as Trapmaster. I full expect as technology advances we will develop all sorts of treatments and procedures that will allow people to become things they weren't born as. But please just let us be honest about what something is and isn't. And if somebody isn't into your particular body modifications, move on.

 

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.