The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition Cover Model Is A Dude

So, first off, Sports Illustrated still exists.

So that's news in itself.

Second off, the cover model is a dude representing himself as a woman.

Stunning and brave!

Because, bigot, it's not enough that you pretend that dudes pretending to be women are women just, y'know, casually. You are now expected to be perfectly cool with dudes pretending to be women in the Sports Illustrated (which I would like to stress: still exists) swimsuit edition... That is to say: under conditions that specifically exist in order for you to be able to look at and admire attractive women. It's not enough that you pretend that Caitlyn (nee Bruce) Jenner is a woman. Noooo! You are now expected to pretend that this dude in a bikini is a woman--and to be ok with his having been specifically chosen because he is a dude and specifically put in a context reserved for attractive women in swimsuits that you would like to look at and admire. The phrase "shoved in your face" comes to mind.

   Now, honestly, I'd be less put off had SI chosen to just put ordinary dudes in their swimsuit edition. That would be more honest and less political--and less crazy. If they'd have said that they'd decided that it is somehow wrong to show only scantily-clad women, so they decided to show scantily-clad dudes as well, I'd think they were kinda dumb, and pawns of a stupid set of ideas spawned by a stupid philosophical worldview... But I'd find that less stupid than this. I can at least imagine being convinced that, if a major publication shows cheesecake, it ought to show beefcake, too. Though this seems to me to be a bit like guys insisting that they be welcomed into a lesbian bar...

   But part of what's up with this is: casually pretending that something patently false is true, as part of a nutso philosophical/political propaganda effort. The other thing would be dumb--but way less dumb. 

   Y'know what would also be less stupid: if SI gave a bunch of arguments for why this person, Mr. Bloom, is (magically) a woman despite--apparently, anyway--being male. Every single one of those arguments I've ever seen is ostentatiously unsound. But, hell, at least they'd be acknowledging that they're committed to a bizarre belief.

   But, no. I'll betcha ten bucks that what they do is simply presuppose that Mr. Bloom is a woman. Thus suggesting that the issue is not--and perhaps has never been--in the least bit controversial. Because that's one of the ways the progressive left works. They take over institutions and use them to do and say shit that presupposes the truth of what they decide you must believe. Argument is a last resort for them--argue, and you might lose. Argue for positions like those of the pomo-prog left, and you will almost certainly lose. It's much safer to just take over institutions and use them to pretend that everyone already believes what you say they should believe.

   I'm reminded here of the Gavin Grimm case. Grimm is a woman who prefers to represent herself as a man. In high school, Grimm insisted on using the boys' restroom. The first I heard of this was a Washington Post story that more or less reported all this as follows:

Why is this VA high school refusing to let one of the boys in the school use the boy's restroom? Why have they picked out Gavin Grimm completely at random and decreed that he has to use the girls' restroom? It's a mystery! They must be insane!

   So, I don't know, but that's one of the left's known M.O.s--so I'd bet that's what's up.

   Wait, are there multiple covers? Because that's what Bing seems to suggest. I've seen two of the women who are apparently on them, and neither knocked me out, I've gotta say. Then, of course, there's Mr. Bloom...who is not only a dude, as I may have mentioned, but kinda uncanny valley, to boot.

   Sidebar: since there are more pictures of hot girls on dem internets than anyone could view in a lifetime, SI probably can't really compete. So might as well repurpose the swimsuit issue into a vehicle for proclaiming their political correctness. 

   Just to remind you, I don't have a problem with people dressing like the opposite sex. It's pretty weird that we have ways of dressing that are sex-specific, anyway. Dudes just straight-up wearing dresses...well...not a great choice aesthetically speaking...but not a bit of my business. Free country. I view it roughly as I view wearing horribly unflattering clothes generally, or getting bad tattoos or whatever. Which is to say: as something with which I have no right to interfere. But also: as something about which I get to make my own judgments--and nobody else gets to interfere with that. If it looks goofy, it looks goofy. I get to think so, and I get to say so--though I'd be an asshole to say so to your face.

   What bugs me about all this is the massive, loony, quasi-official lie that such men actually are women (or that analogous women are men.) That's just bullshit--bullshit supported by exactly zero sound arguments so far as I can tell. And no one has the authority to tell me that I must believe or affirm falsehoods or unsupported beliefs. As Orwell almost said: freedom is the freedom to not say that two and two make five.