Advanced search

To wonder WTF National Geographic are playing at?

(10 Posts)
GarrulousGrimoire Thu 29-Dec-16 17:57:49

I love the magazines and follow on social.

The last few posts that have been shown have ALL been in support of #GenderRevolution.

Now forgetting where you fall on the argument can you tell me WTF gender has to do with a georgraphy and nature magazine? Why are they ruining themselves bandwagon jumping?

I've now de-followed in irritation!

britbat23 Thu 29-Dec-16 18:09:18

Hurrah, a trans thread, we never have these

GarrulousGrimoire Thu 29-Dec-16 18:13:25

Thats ok you can always go chat about puppies or kiddiwinkles thataway >>>>

It's about a specific publications remit, it's topical, and above all its a free forum 🙄

britbat23 Thu 29-Dec-16 18:15:12

National Geographic has always had an anthropological remit

and this place is OBSESSED with transgenderism

Softkitty2 Thu 29-Dec-16 18:36:03


GarrulousGrimoire Thu 29-Dec-16 18:56:24

Can someone provide me with a list of what is and isn't allowed to be discussed please?

Perhaps attach it to a newbie introduction area?

Brit fair point, as a result of your note about anthropology I had a deeper look and noted their article and reasoning. I still disagree with their approach as it seems very one sided but understand their coverage of the topic more.

britbat23 Thu 29-Dec-16 19:04:05

Presumably NatGeo can take whatever position they want?

Writing about something does not equal supporting it.

Not sure what your AIBU is really. "AIBU to be cross about a magazine article that I disagree with? (That I hadn't actually read until now, just seen tweets about)"

TheMortificadosDragon Thu 29-Dec-16 19:06:57

Anything can be discussed, but because MN seems to be one of the few places you actually can talk about gender issues it's got a bit boring for some folk.

If you want a serious discussion, generally best to find an appropriate topic not AIBU or Chat. smile


GarrulousGrimoire Thu 29-Dec-16 19:13:13

No Brit I read the article, and the one before that, which is what my post is about. I hadn't read a note in the magazine defending their inclusion of the topic.

Their defence of the topic is as you put it, they are an observer and reporter of all things human (in a summation) and it's an interesting topic.

Their actual inclusion is less biased than their defence of it and while they are free to take a position, I am free to be disappointed that a usually observational publication is seemingly doing so. They put a 9y0 transgender girl in the cover, she decided at 5.

I am free to say a 5yo doesn't understand gender and putting her on the front of NatGeo gives her no back out position and is fairly shitty.

And my AIBU is in the title.

Thank you Morti.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Thu 29-Dec-16 19:21:37

YANBU but for a different reason.

As a PP said the NatGeo do a lot of anthropological stuff, and sex and gender are very important in this.

But putting a boy with long pink hair, and pink clothes posing coquettishly on the cover is just reinforcing gender stereotypes - if you have those things you are not a boy you are a transgirl.

And of course their infamous gender inclusive cover that included people of all sorts of gender except erm women...

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: