Saturday, June 04, 2011

Must not dislike a man who poses as a female model



We read:
"It ranked him ahead of Lady Gaga and former Victoria's Secret model Izabel Goular in its annual 100 Sexiest Women in the World list, but lads' magazine FHM has been forced to apologise to Australia's femiman Andrej Pejic after referring to the male model as a "thing" online.

Pejic, the Broadmeadows boy in hot demand on international catwalks for his delicate looks, was voted for inclusion on the list by the magazine's US readers, The Guardian has reported.

But in his online profile, posted on FHM's website last month, the 19-year-old was unkindly referred to as a "blonde gender bender", a "professional cross-dresser" and a "thing".

"Although his sexual identity is ambiguous, designers are hailing him as the next big thing," the author wrote under the heading "Why we love Andrej Pejic". "We think 'thing' is quite accurate...Pass the sick bucket."

Source

13 comments:

Stan B said...

Wonderful! Now, not only do women have those tiny stick figures who only exist on runways and in anorexia wards to give them body image issues, they must now reconcile to being compared to MEN who will never develop hips or chests! And we wonder why our world is so screwed up?

Anonymous said...

Different streaks for different freaks.

Anonymous said...

A lot of so-called femininity in women (let alone epicene guys like this one) is contrived with makeup, hairstyles and shape-enhancing clothing, not to mention breast-implants and surgical interventions. If gender differences have to be so emphasized to distiguish between the sexes, it is very worrying!

Anonymous said...

Freaks always attract attention. He/she/it is no different in that regard. What is far worse is how women allow themselves to be told what "normal" is by the gays who run the fashion industry.

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when the abnormal use our laws to make themselves "normal"...


Fox (6/3/11) - A California bill working its way through the state legislature providing more protection for transgender individuals in the workplace could allow for cross-dressing employees to wear whatever they want to work, despite workplace dress codes.

AB 887, which passed through the state's Assembly on May 16, is causing a stir among critics who feel it's raising the identity of a transgender individual to the same level as one's ethnicity or gender.

"If you talk to the average (human resources) manager and ask if there would be any disturbances if a man came dressed as a woman one week and then as a man the next, I think the (HR) rep would say 'yeah, this would be disruptive to the workplace,' " said Brad Daucus, a California attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute. "It will inherently cause customers to be uncomfortable and not want to do business."

Sponsored by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and co-authored by Equality California and the Transgender Law Center, the bill would strengthen civil rights protections in the areas of employment and housing for individuals based not only on the gender of the person's assigned sex at birth, but also by a person's "gender expression."

Atkins, Equality California and the Transgender Law Center did not return FoxNews.com's requests for comment.

But in a press release from May 17, Atkins said she was "grateful" for the support the bill received from her Assembly colleagues and will "continue fighting for this important legislation to become a law."

Critics like Daucus feel the law would limit the authority of employers who disagree with an employee's cross-dressing attire.

"This is not dealing with harassment, we already have laws in California that address harassment," said Daucus. "This is about employers having to deal with employees who dress in a way that employers know will cost them either in terms of customers, employer morale, or employee operational efficiency."

Daucus is not limiting its effect to just the sales industry. He believes businesses, such as child day care centers and retail clothing stores, would be affected by cross-dressing employees who might have the upper hand when it comes to legal disputes with employers regarding their clothing choices.

"If you have a mother taking her son to a store for back-to-school shopping and the retail clerk is a man dressed like a woman, the mother is going to take her son and go to another store," said Daucus.

TheOldMan said...

Did they call for violence against the fellow? No. Did they incite a crowd to go to his house and burn it down? No. Did they express their opinion? Yes. Oh my, cannot have that.

sig said...

It's all really so simple: Do a DNA test to determine if the person has XX or XY chromosomes, then he/she can be classifies accordingly.

Looks and mindset have absolutely nothing to do with "maleness" or "femaleness". It's about genetic makeup.

All you Politically Correct advocates keep dismissing religion for science, so how about actually letting science do the work for you?

Anonymous said...

"All you Politically Correct advocates keep dismissing religion for science, so how about actually letting science do the work for you?"

Science and reason always trumps religion and superstition.

Anonymous said...

It's more complicated than just XX and XY chromosomes as fetal hormones can make an XY "male" born seeming in every way female. There are cases of such "females" later learning as adults that they have XY chromosomes.

Anonymous said...

The same arguments about causing disturbance or offending customers were used about other groups, and sometimes still (eg. women, gays, blacks, other ethnic groups, etc.) Society is more mature now in most cases, so being offended or disturbed by transgendered or transvestite people is just puerile. As for dress codes these are not affected if there are two styles on offer.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:51 said;
"Science and reason always trumps religion and superstition."

Shouldn't they also trump "feelings" and political agenda?

Anonymous said...

"Shouldn't they also trump "feelings" and political agenda?"

Duh!

Anonymous said...

Didn't Jesus deliberately associate with people on the fringes of society regarded as not respectable? And didn't he severely criticize the priests and Pharisees for being self-righteous with regard to such social outcasts? So-called Christians who pontificate on this site should maybe take note!