zlacker

Yeah, that's just nuts. Let's be very specific: the issue was that Bud Light hired Dylan Mulvaney to do a social media promotion. It's not as if Dylan's face was on beer cans available in stores or anything. And this simple act caused a massive backlash. I would think that this might raise some questions about who exactly the prigs were in this instance.

>>Bryant+(OP)
The backlash arose for many reasons, but this article explains the most principled one:

https://thecritic.co.uk/dylan-mulvaney-did-not-share-our-gir...

It's not priggish to take a stand against misogyny, is it?

>>blasor+4W1
The "misogyny" that article purports is just... being publicly trans.

>>azerni+Pf2
Exactly. It's fundamentally misogynistic for these men to appropriate a "woman" identity, and Mulvaney is a very typical example of this.

Think about it. If you remove the female body from the definition of woman, what else remains besides sexist stereotypes?

>>blasor+Qh2
No

>>blasor+4W1
So if you, in good faith, believe a behavior is oppressive, it's not priggish to take a stand against it? That would also demolish PG's entire argument.