Vogue - another captured publication?

[SabrinaThwaite]

Vogue magazine has published a piece by Emily Bridges:

I Was Banned From Competitive Cycling Because I’m Trans. That Won’t Stop Me Fighting For My Rights.

https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/emily-bridges-trans-cyclist?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_social-type=owned

Full of the usual hogwash and inaccuracies, and the discredited CCES report is doing some heavy lifting.

And apparently they will be trying to take British Cycling to court. We shall see.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

I would buy it still if it stuck to it's remit of clothes and fashion.
What else would you like to know LondonLass91?

Your comment about Emily's stature made me think, just how tall is Bridges? Googling "emily bridges height" came up with several sites claiming 5'9"! Luckily in an interview with Cycling Weekly he states "Yes, I’m quite tall [6ft 2in], ..."

Which did make me wonder where these other (admittedly shit) websites got their numbers from.

The DM have covered it, taking the angle of all the amazing and successful sportswomen around at the moment they went with this!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12440559/Trans-cyclist-Emily-Bridges-vows-fight-British-Cycling-courts-streets-transgender-ban-amid-backlash-Vogue-magazine-naming-sportswoman-years-list-25-powerhouse-women.html

Emily Bridges is 5’9” in the same way that Lia Thomas is 5’9” - ie not. It seems some people find it useful to put false stats out there.

They are both around 6’2”.

haute couture has always hated the bodies of mature women

so capture would not be a surprise

Emily doesn't look good in this Vogue shoot tho. Emily looks like 2010 era Julian assange.

Any woman who was photograhed in Vogue looking like that would be dragged to hell and back.

Conde Nast is the parent company and if you look across their publications (whether primarily aimed at men or women) the output is the same and there is a strange obsession with trans issues for magazines aimed at selling clothing.

I was rather hoping they would do a group shot of all the finalists standing together, because it is only when you see pictures of gentle, frail, belittled and misunderstood Emily standing over six feet tall in her size nines that you understand why women don’t want to compete against men.

I'm struggling to recall if Emily has actually raced in a women's race yet? Can anyone help? Because if they haven't, it's an extra level of stupid to put Bridges in the power list over sportswomen who have actually competed in something!

No, I think Bridges had only ever competed against other males. Wasn't bad, but also wasn't "will be snapped up by Ineos" good like some of his compatriots (such as Fred Wright & Tom Pidcock).

Bridges and another transwoman raced in one of those woke “womens races open to transwomen who have marginally lowered their T level” events. Bridges and the other transwoman came first and second. The third place winner was pictured on the podium holding her baby.

But it’s the intention, not whether they achieved it 😉

Old twitter accounts of Bridges’ mum show her pushing her daughter into modelling when she was only young, perhaps eleven or twelve. I’m not sure what happened to that child but there’s something deeply unsettling about her son now being used as a model for Vogue etc.
Almost like one of the children has to be famous at any cost.

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 16:07

Emily Bridges is 5’9” in the same way that Lia Thomas is 5’9” - ie not. It seems some people find it useful to put false stats out there.

It's all part of the propaganda push, to make it seem that they're just like real women. Compare it with the BBC having a woman read out his hissy fit rant about being confined to competing in his own sex class.

It was so that people couldn't hear his gruff, manly voice and go, "Erm, hang on a minute..."

The entire article is such an embarrassment. Sad that Vogue is now so far up its own backside that it could not recognise that this pathetic list of nepo-babies, twitter warriors (Carol Vorderman fgs!) and men would make them a laughing stock.

The issue of sport really is at the fulcrum of the most ardent TRA activism.
It represents the weakest and yet, at the same time, most essential component of TRA ideology. Once the illusion that men can be women, and that there are no essential differences between the sexes comes apart, in the context of sport, it begins to unravel elsewhere too.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12443025/VICTORIA-HOOD-cynical-wokery-Vogue-including-transgender-cyclist-Emily-Bridges-line-powerhouse-females-demeans-girl-dares-dream.html

Good article by Victoria Hood, former UK cyclist and woman who has been active in setting up all woman cycling events.

To be fair, Vogue badly needed a shake up. It used to have a society column that would have embarrassed the Daily Telegraph, and you had a strong sense that everyone who worked there had been to the same boarding school. I assume Edward Enninful was hired to tackle that and in particular the lack of black or brown faces both in the magazine and on the staff. But the fact that they were openly seeking change probably meant they were vulnerable to other lobbyists. And so here we are.