National Geographic

[FloraFox]

Can you spot what's missing from this picture?

It doesn't stop there. They're featuring self-confessed rapist Cherno Biko too.

Jesus, Cherno Biko is still getting gigs? That's appalling.

I actually LOVE the magazine cover. Because I can use it as a visual aid whenever I'm discussing the tendency of transactivism to erase women. Can't think of a better illustration. Who wants a boring old female on the cover? Meh! Dullsville.

I think the group of genderists might be the back cover, and the pink boy is the front.

Bump

It's an interesting thread, Mystic, but I'm not sure I have any more to add. The NG cover perfectly illustrates the misogyny of trans activism. Women are being erased. We are now non men.

I agree prawn I just bumped it as I was looking for misplaced threads after the troll
Miffer seems to have rounded them up nicely.
I missed this one the first time round so bumped it, for others who may have missed it too.

I reported all the reanimated zombie threads on Sitestuff and they have mostly disappeared.

The troll's posts has been removed but the 6 year old threads are still on page one of feminsm chat, More recent threads are now on following pages.

That's not true on my phone, so I guess it depends on what you're using to access the site. Weird, huh?

Arhh I see, on my phone the first 20ish are the rebumped recent threads, after that they all seem to be zombie threads. Do you have 20 threads a page then?

No, only 11. But they are all current.

That is weird then. I've just counted on my phone it's 50 threads a page.

Your screen must be a lot bigger than mine. I've got a Nokia Lumia.

I can see 12 threads on the screen at one time, then scroll down. Must be set up through browser maybe?

I can also see 12, but scrolling down I get 44 threads before I actually have to go back to a previous page.

I am working my way down hiding any threads from 2010 that KatherineMumsnet hasn't dealt with. She seems to have got rid of most of them.

I'm still raging about the NG cover. I want to pin the editorial board, go through the various identities on display and ask them if they even noticed that women weren't represented. I'd like to hear their justification for erasing women in this way. I bet they never even noticed, and I would love to hear them examine the reasons why they didn't. It says so much about them and their policies.

My DF is a subscriber but says it has gone downhill since, in his words, bloody Murdoch took it over.

There is no such thing as a transgender female. No more than a transgender male. It is biologically impossible and mashes gender and sex, which is illogical. Transgender means crossing from one gender to another. Which is perfectly acceptable. What strikes me is that the cover did not say transsexual, however to get around this male and female biology are now conflated with gender. This is a get out clause to keep the gender binary in force. Stupid really.

Why, oh why then with this mashed up illogical nonsense, is Transgender aligned with sexuality as in LGBT?

Female,
Male, (because males come from females)
Trans (because the binary in gender must at all times be enforced).

As for the rest? Like this is news? A revolution it is not! They are people who do not conform to gender stereotypes. So feminism, which at it's roots is against gender conformity, should be part of the montage (which frankly, I find condescending). They are missing feminist. They are missing the most important sex on this planet. Female.

As I understand it, Elendon, a transgender female is a transman, and a transgender male is a transwoman. There's the sex, male or female, and then there's the superimposed transgender element, iyswim.

The child in the photograph is therefore a transgender male.

I do understand what you mean Prawnofthepatriarchy, but wouldn't the child be a transgender woman? By calling this child a female is to infantalise women (goes with the trope women and children). Because when the child grows up, as children we hope do, then they become a transwoman instead of transfemale? I'm a grown up woman, I'm still a female and have been since birth.

And heterosexuality is important. It means propagation of the human race. Those who expend most in time and energy in doing this are females. Can this not be acknowledged? Transfemales will never give birth.

Ah I see, transfemales can give birth, but they do so as men. Understood.

A male child who is transgender would be a transgirl, surely? Not a transwoman, who would be an adult.

The magazine has come through the door today. Haven't read it yet but seems to have a lot on what women /girls face worldwide (once you've passed all the pages on the men) - there's a lot on fgm too. So may not be as bad as the cover. Will have a read over the next few days...

I won't see it until I next visit my DP on 24th, but will ask them to hang on to it. Will ask my DF to have a good look at the cover and work out which group is missing. It'll tickle him.

There's another picture inside with an even wider group - there's a straight female in there tucked away.
It touches on a lot of good stuff (or rather bad stuff!) like fgm, equality gap etc that looks at the traditional gender. But then the main pieces are around the trans topics. There's a big piece on the science behind trans where the science itself is fine as it explains intersex/intrasex but the extrapolation to the feelings piece is not really explained. The word sex almost does not exist and most things re sex or gender is called gender. Very carefully edited....