Vogue - another captured publication?

I know, it's so hilarious isn't it..powerhouse indeed...

Who on earth buys Vogue anymore....I mean who are these people?!?!

The powerhouse list is baffling.
Carol Voderman? Lila Moss?

I've no objection to men writing and talking about clothes and fashion - gender identity immaterial provided they have something interesting to say on the topic. What I object to is using a magazine about clothes and fashion to talk over women and promote your own agenda. And yes, an editor should be able to spot the difference.

Vogue is a men's rights magazine. Men should never be made editors of magazines where the primary readership is women.

Me. Or at least I used to before they featured Paris Lees in the women's suffrage edition. I love clothes and I miss it.

I Was Banned From Competitive Cycling Because I’m Trans.

Hmm, Zachily started them's article with a lie as the first sentence. Them - as we all know - hasn't been banned at all.

Don't publishers of false articles have to print corrections?

And all the good athletes - KJT, Femke Bol, Sifan Hassan, Laura Muir. And now a new generation: Megan Keith, Molly Caudery and the various gymnasts and sailors who've won international medals this year.

Emily and her enablers are thick skinned and hard faced alhough she sure
has impressive shoulders, ala Alexis Colby, (who was at least stylish and witty).

Emily can, but Emily isn't good enough. Emily can only beat women.

As for Vogue - there are so many amazing sportswomen they could feature. I hope they all tell them to get stuffed.

who buys/reads Vogue??? hands up !!

Bridges is an entitled brat.

According to the DM article on this, Bridges said that being banned from competing against women was akin to a genocide.

I mean, absolutely fuck this person.

British Vogue is 100% captured, they have both Paris Lees and Shon Faye as columnists. I doubt they would ever feature anyone who has expressed GC views or publish GC views

It’s not really surprising that a publication that exists to promote a fantasy of womanhood that involves all sorts of expensive, impractical and uncomfortable props to support the fantasy, should succumb to this one.

Emily Bridges is this year's token trans woman in Vogue's Women of the Year list, the BBC will soon do 100 Women and have to find a token trans woman or two to add.

But this is a Conde Nast issue, GQ keeps posting about trans issues too and asking readers to donate to Mermaids.

So why can't Emily compete in the Open category?

I think the problem is that going against what your child wants is hard work. It takes a hell of a lot of talking, crying, research and fighting against ‘the norm’ (the norm being instant affirmation, puberty blockers, etc.) to actually get to the crux of why your child wants to transition.

God knows when my DS wanted to transition it was an extremely hard time for all of us, trying to walk the tightrope between showing him that we loved him no matter what and questioning where his ideas on gender had come from and what he actually expected from transition.

It would have been so easy to just whack him on the puberty blockers and come out as a feted trans ally with all the rainbows and sparkles that would follow. It if we had done that then he would now be medicalised for life and would be on his way to ‘bottom surgery’ and all the absolute horrors that entails.

So I’m immensely relieved that we put in the hard work, luckily me and my son have a very close relationship, so it could withstand the questions and heartache that happened. I’m still his ‘favourite person’! 😁

A brain?

If India had a cervix they'd be dangerous.

I believe it is known now that Teen Vogue has a huge male adult readership. The mag is aimed at them. It has been giving male oriented advice that they tried to hide as for being teen girls. I believe misinformation was coined with teen Vogue in mind.

Cyclemum as she was on here was never as coherent or as insightful as she believed she was. I expect Amelia is rolling her eyes.

Oh, but @RealityFan, didn’t you see the bit in the article about the CCES having announced TW totally don’t have a physical advantage in sport?

The language of the site alone makes it clear there’s an ethical issue with with this centre of ethics (ie ideological capture & resultant bias). The report itself makes for quite remarkable reading - they’ve decided on the conclusion they want & reached it by ignoring the evidence (BeCaUsE rEaSoNs) & making a wide range of remarkable claims along the way; as well as the usual grossly offensive attempts to pretend this is in some way related to the issues around people with DSDs participating in sports & said issues being framed as racist policing of women’s bodies.

Personally - & I accept not everyone shares this view, due to our having fallen through the Looking Glass - I don’t think a paper that states “Male” and “female” are not mutually exclusive categories and should not be treated as such should be given any weight regarding biology & physiology. It’s all about testosterone from the physical side; & only elite athletes; & really the important thing to consider is the social factors… it’s absolutely brain-bending; & I don’t mean in the sense of intellectually challenging 🤦‍♀️

True Emily certainly is a big ally to the gender crit movement. British cycling has a long history of being sexist, but Emily managed to push them to actually do something for women for a change by being so over the top. Similar effect to Lia Thomas.

As for Bridges and his family. Bridges went to a fee paying school, not a major one, but enough to be firmly in the upper middle classes and obviously comes from a fairly posh background that is how they could afford to support cycling. Hence the sense of entitlement, but also the family pressure and expectation. That can work well, up to the point it pushes you too far. Plus Bridges is from Wales, that you can't tell that from the accent says a lot, from just outside Newport and to be fair to Bridges is likely to have not fitted in well in everyday life.

When you listen to Bridges you might go that is a bit of a posh twat, or the social artifice pulls you in. Bridges and his family know well to appeal to a certain section of the British middle classes, that is how they got a bunch of media stories out, but the thing is other Brits can see right through it, and they just don't know how to handle that. The Brit love of turning on social climbers has a dark side, but when it hits well deserved targets it is enjoyable on a deep level. Bridges claiming genocide just sounds absurd. Peaking a lot of people. The more publicity they get the better it is for us.

Vogue's headline got reader contexted with the truth on twitter which is delightful.

The Vogue headline is incorrect. Bridges is entitled to compete in the open category and has therefore not been "banned from competitive cycling." The statement that Bridges may not compete in the Women's category is accurate.

The Telegraph is loving this and has a great quote:

Fiona McAnena, the director of sport at Fair Play for Women, told Telegraph Sport: “It’s shocking, isn’t it – it’s once again a real kick in the teeth for women. We have any number of outstanding female athletes and Vogue will prefer to showcase a male cyclist who has not performed at the highest level. Emily Bridges is not yet a successful international cyclist so it’s hard to see why Bridges is there.
“Katarina <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/hOljJ/www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2023/08/20/katarina-johnson-thompson-gold-medal-world-championships/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Johnson-Thompson became the world champion in the heptathlon – she is a world champion in a really tough event. She should be in there, not Bridges.”

Just when did women, mothers in particular, become such terrible guardians for their children.

They've always existed. It's just that there's a lot of them in the public eye these days. And not only that but they are being lauded as the complete opposite. It's truly sickening.