July 15, 2017

Vogue Magazine apologizes for saying "Gigi Hadid and Zayn Malik are Part of a New Generation Embracing Gender Fluidity."

The Daily News reports.
"The story was intended to highlight the impact the gender-fluid, non-binary communities have had on fashion and culture," the statement read. "We are very sorry the story did not correctly reflect that spirit - we missed the mark. We do look forward to continuing the conversation with greater sensitivity."...

Throughout the article, Hadid and Malik are quoted engaging in light chit-chat about how they enjoy going through each other's closets and finding new pieces to wear, regardless of whether they were marketed to men or women.

"I like (your shirt)," Malik says to Hadid. "And if it's tight on me, so what? It doesn't matter if it was made for a girl."

"Totally. It's not about gender," Hadid responds. "It's about like, shapes. And what feels good on you that day. And anyway, it's fun to experiment."
So what exactly did Vogue do wrong here? It seems Hadid and Malik are not real gender-fluid people, but just a couple of kids wearing each other's clothes.  I'm not seeing the word "appropriation," but it seems like an appropriation problem. Gender fluidity must be understood as an inward condition, and your inside should match your outside or you are just playing with appearances.

Of course, Vogue is a fashion magazine, and fashion really is about the outside, but it's often the case that you speak about fashion as an expression of what you are inside. And yet fashion is not always about getting the inside to match the outside. Sometimes one dresses against one's inner feelings. Fashion magazines often rave about a very feminine woman in menswear tailoring or a tomboy-type suddenly getting up in a frou-frou dress.

Isn't it funny that the excitement about gender fluidity is manifesting itself in disciplining other people about keeping strict conformity between interior and exterior? You'd think fluidity would take us somewhere liberating, but it seems to bring new censoriousness and restriction.

But I do understand how irritating it is when fashion magazines pick up on some new social phenomenon, something you think has substance and depth, and turn it into a lightweight trend for the pretty people to have their shallow fun with.

Here's how my favorite fashion blog — Tom & Lorenzo — reacted to the cover story. Just a bunch of pictures (including Hadid and Malik standing in water wearing horrendous orange-brown corduroy suits). The top-rated comment over there — where the comments are excellent — is: "they are both HIGHLY ridiculous, but I love them. I'm iranian-american and it's nice to see these two -- both half middle-eastern, zayn open about his muslim faith -- being adorable and in love. and for real that track jacket portrait is hilarious."

Oh! The gender-fluidity police went after a Muslim! A crash in the crossroads of intersectionality.

42 comments:

Feste said...

A little bit Donny. And a little bit Marie.

Dan Truitt said...

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Greece.

rhhardin said...

It might be gender gas, not fluid. Why should you have only one direction at one point.

eddie willers said...

You'd think fluidity would take us somewhere liberating, but it seems to bring new censoriousness and restriction.

Who would think fluidity could be so rigid?

tcrosse said...

Vogue is Bludgeoned into Greater Sensitivity.

campy said...

Who would think fluidity could be so rigid?

You mean besides everybody?

Michael K said...

Mental illness might be contagious.

Laslo Spatula said...

"...And anyway, it's fun to experiment."

I love it when hot chicks say this.

It's like you're already halfway there.

I Am Laslo.

n.n said...

Sex is binary. Gender is a combination of physical characteristics and behaviors closely correlated with sex. Gender fluidity, whether it is homosexual, bisexual, crossover, and other deviations from Nature's sex norms occurs on a transgender spectrum.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Well that's what it takes to get Vogue to apologise.

It should apologise for encouraging teens to have unprotected anal sex. Well that would just be caving in to the deplorables.

eddie willers said...

Nature's sex norms occurs on a transgender spectrum.

Between lavender and pink?

rcocean said...

I was wondering where the liberals/SJW's would attack next after their win on Gay marriage.

I thought it would be 1-1 marriage in their support for polygamy. But i was wrong. It was the Transgender nonsense.

Fascinating that the liberals want to make this their new crusade, I guess they've won anywhere else, and this represents cleaning up the last pockets of resistance.

buwaya said...

Even if they are having sex, which I doubt, I don't think their mothers can expect grandchildren. Or, at any rate, not unless the girl finds some other fellow.

This, fertility, seems the critical distinction between "normal" of some sort and abnormal. The abnormal seem consumed these days by a neurotic obsession with taxonomies of abnormality. That taxonomizing is also a fashion.

As per Dr. K, I dont think mental illness is contagious, but it seems that the expression of mental illnesses also follows fashions. There was once a fad among the mad to pretend to be Napoleon. These days they seem to pretend to be women, or animals (yes, I have seen a whole convention of "furries"), or whatever else is current.

rcocean said...

Whenever you hear about Lesbian sex, you think of two hot young chicks making out. In reality its usually some 200 lbs bull-dyke making it with a plain "lipstick" lesbian.
Like 50 y/o Eleanor Roosevelt making out with 300 lbs. "Hick".

Sad.

tcrosse said...

Deep down it's all about peddling schmattes.

Feste said...

"It might be gender gas, not fluid. Why should you have only one direction at one point."

Hahahaha.

Put a Penis Parabola under Pressure and it will tend toward Catastrophe (like all parabolas do).

Rrhardin's Kama Sutra guide on how to turn a penis into a gas. It’s all about temperature and pressure, baby.

Fucking, rhhardin, go away.

rcocean said...

Mental illness isn't contagious. But liberalism is. Getting society to approve of all this is just one more step in dismantling "Bourgeois Morality".

The ultimate goal is "Socialism" aka rule by certain group of leftists. Once in power, they may continue to approve of Transgenders, or condemn it as "counter-revolutionary". It all depends.

Leftists keep their eyes on the prize.

Virgil Hilts said...

If Vogue wants to make amends they should put nothing but gender fluid models on their covers for next 12 months. They might have to re-use Andrej Pejic a few times, but they could do it if they tried. If they really wanted to.

Bob Boyd said...

"Totally. It's not about gender," Hadid responds. "It's about like, shapes. And what feels good on you that day. And anyway, it's fun to experiment."

MAGA hats are unisex.

tcrosse said...

Sometimes that Gender Fluid is hard to get out of the sheets.

Donald Douglas said...

Intersectionality produces irreconcilable conflicts among competing identity groups. Someone, usually those lower on the hierarchy of oppression, almost always gets hurt. It's a really ugly generational politics, that seems to be taking over everything. Black Lives Matter took over Bernie Sanders' rallies, and all he could do was stand there befuddled, being an old white man, and hence historically patriarchically oppressive (and a Jew too, now considered a "privileged" group, apparently, heh).

Oh, the good times, lol.

Mountain Maven said...

Hugh Hewitt is the only subscription I pay for.

tcrosse said...

Identity Politics looks suspiciously like Divide and Rule. Cui bono ?

n.n said...

Mental illness might be contagious.

There is evidence that gender correlation with sex can be manipulated through indoctrination (e.g. normalization) and corruption (e.g. hormone therapy, surgery). The social liberal experiment targeting prepubescent and adolescent boys and girls may prove fruitful. As did other social experiments including setting men and women at each other's throats, [class] diversity that ideologically divided people by the "color of their skin", and Planned Parenthood that operated with a psychopolitical consensus to rationalize wild departures from the scientific domain (e.g. spontaneous human conception) and reduction of human rights, selectively.

buwaya said...

I wonder if there is some system by which someone gets a license to switch sexual obsessions - homosexual to furry, for instance, or to transgender, or transgender flavor A to flavor B. There seems to be a need here.

I think there is a role here for a state agency. They should manage applications and set up a review board. They could have the DMV add stickers to drivers licenses.

tcrosse said...

I wonder if there is some system by which someone gets a license to switch sexual obsessions

Something like a Bus Transfer.

MayBee said...

I love the idea that "gender fluid", which has been around as a term for a hot minute, is being policed before even Vogue knows how to use it. It reminds me of the term "fake news" in that way.

But anyway.....come on. Rock Stars have been dressing in women's-ish clothes for as long as there have been rock stars. Does anybody think Mick Jagger dressed like a stereotypical "male"?

MayBee said...

What would happen to Christian Soriano now if he went around saying "Hot Tranny Mess" like he used to, and like everyone loved him for doing?

Paco Wové said...

"It should apologise for encouraging teens to have unprotected anal sex."

You can't lead the "resistance" without tearing a few sphincters, Bill.

gadfly said...

Mountain Maven said...
Hugh Hewitt is the only subscription I pay for.

Um, you pay for BS like this?

And if Trump is the nominee I will support him for six reasons.

The first three are the existing and probable two additional Supreme Court nominations he will get to make. Judges Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor are two fine judges that Trump has mentioned as possible nominees and he made the right commitment on religious liberty to me on stage Thursday night. He won’t screw these up. More precisely, it is a lock that Clinton would screw them up and at least a fighting chance he wouldn’t.

Fourth, Trump’s an honest-to-God builder and he will rebuild the Navy, which must be done. Soon.

Fifth, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will at least think twice before crossing him.
And, finally, sixth: Donald’s daughter and Svengali, Ivanka is a smart, smart, smart lady with an extraordinary intellect and influence on her father. We get the GOP’s own Valerie Jarrett, only this one with a sense of America’s role in the world and the same resolve to succeed as Jarrett possesses.


If and when Donald takes the stage in Cleveland in July — and assuming he has repudiated the various racists trying to capture his flag — the anti-Donalds will have gotten over it, just as the anti-Cruz, anti-Kasich, or anti-Rubio folk will have gotten over it if one those three beats their guy. This year’s election is about much bigger issues than the nominee. It is about beating Clinton and saving the country.

Nick Gillespie at Reason responded:

These strike me as incredibly piss-poor reasons to support anyone for any office, much less Trump for president. What is it about conservatives and the goddamn Navy? As if the mechanics of war haven't changed since World War I, they are bizarrely obsessed with the number of boats countries have (oddly, when they go on and on about our lack of ships, they never talk about, you know, how many more airplanes and bombs we have added since 1918). Supreme Court appointments are routinely overestimated as a perk of power. Not only are they far less transformative than commonly believed — legal scholar Mark Tushnet persuasively argues that SCOTUS decisions are actually "noise around zero"—they are extremely unpredictable (see Eisenhower, Dwight). When it comes to warmongering (if that's your idea of foreign policy), you probably should vote for Hillary Clinton, the Madame Defarge of the 21st century. This is also the first time that I've heard Ivanka Trump, a capable business operator (I guess) who has even less experience in politics (and self-made businesses) than her father, trotted out as a secret weapon to make America great again. Seriously, WTF?

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lucien said...

Intersectionality doesn't have crossroads, they're too rigid and patriarchal. No overpasses or underpasses either -- hierarchical.

Intersectionality has traffic circles (or sometimes, roundabouts).

Gahrie said...

You'd think fluidity would take us somewhere liberating, but it seems to bring new censoriousness and restriction.

That's the purpose. "Gender fluidity" is all about virtue signaling and imposing Leftwing power over society.

Gahrie said...

Does anybody think Mick Jagger dressed like a stereotypical "male"?

I'll see your Mick Jagger and raise you David Bowie and Boy George.

Fernandinande said...

Waterford boy, 8, saves sister's life
"I wouldn't do it again. She's been a pain this week."

tcrosse said...

I got your gender fluidity right here.

Laslo Spatula said...

I liked it better when it was not old-fashioned to prefer your women without a cock.

I am Laslo.

Mountain Maven said...

Having a bad day Gadfly?
My point is that I only pay for what I consider to be valuable. You may disagree on what is valuable and read the NYT, WAP0 or any other source. I'll respect your choice.

tcrosse said...

Here's one for Laszlo
Lola

Rae said...

The next frontier will be transgenders forcing normals to have sex with them, because who but a transphobe would not want to?

Ann Althouse said...

"Does anybody think Mick Jagger dressed like a stereotypical "male"?"

According to Keith Richards' autobiography, The Rolling Stones' fashion style was arrived at, early on, by them simply starting to wear their girlfriends' clothes.

Ann Althouse said...

"The next frontier will be transgenders forcing normals to have sex with them, because who but a transphobe would not want to?"

Forcing is rape. It won't be forcing. It will be persuasion, as it is with most sex. How many men have talked women into having sex by telling them they are somehow a bad person if they don't have sex? It's up to the individual to think clearly and to be in honest touch with their own sexual desires. That's always been true. People will try to talk other people into having sex with them. And much bad sex is had because people are talked into it. Why make a special case out of transgenders? Just because they have an unusually hard persuasion task? It's all persuasion unless it's rape.