FormerSwimsuitIssueFan

I understand this possibly/probably will result in a ban or deletion, but it's a serious question and no offense is meant. What is the motivation behind putting transgender models in modeling situations formerly occupied by "cis"-gendered women? This mostly arose as a result of the Swimsuit Issue, but I can't post in that forum. Still, I think the phenomenon is wider spread than the SI alone. The Swimsuit Issue attained iconic status due to its creation/popularization of specific women who straight males - especially young straight males - saw as sex symbols. I suspect if you told a 14-year old boy in 1988 that the magazine would one day include people born with a penis and testicles he would simply be confused; "why would it?" he might ask. That's a reasonable line of inquiry even today - was there a huge shift in market demand in the last few years, where straight men suddenly became much more attracted to transgendered people and forced Sports Illustrated to add them to the magazine for economic reasons? That seems unlikely to me. I suppose the shift in market demand could simply be a result of the fact that straight men who like hot women are no longer the audience at all, given that they have a near-infinite amount of titillating images online, and instead it is primarily consumed by people interested in advancing social justice etc etc. Is that the largest share of buyers at the newsstand in 2021? I have no idea. Until the last few years, I'd always buy the SI, mostly out of nostalgia but also because I just like good photographs of beautiful women in gorgeous settings. I don't look at pornography at all, which may explain the enduring affection for this PG-13 diversion. Now, I can't buy it. I am not attracted to the overweight and obese women that get a bunch of spots, and I am not attracted to transgender people. There are presumably more people like me and Sports Illustrated is okay with losing our purchases because they are offset by the additional purchases made by those who (1) like overweight/obese women, and/or (2) are attracted to transgender people and/or (3) are interested in specific social justice results? If it's not an economic decision - if, for instance, the loss of purchases by people like me aren't offset by the additional purchases of the aforementioned sorts - I struggle to understand the rationale. Are the businesspeople who run Sports Illustrated so committed to social justice initiatives that they are willing to lose money for them? I suppose it's possible; contra libertarian fundamentalists, markets are not always "rational." I also wonder if there's a parallel phenomenon on the other end of the spectrum. Are biological women being included in content aimed at gay men who don't have a special interest for transgender people, for instance? Are non-transgender models being pushed into content aimed at those exclusively/primarily attracted to transgender people? Thanks for any serious responses.

Good call. One of only a tiny handful of models in this year's issue that wouldn't look totally out of place in the magazine's heyday. Bonus: chromosomes are XX!

Thanks!!

Lovely pictures, @jal718 I would post this in the swimsuit issue forum, but I apparently cannot. Since it involves Casta, I'll do it here. Does anyone have scans from the 1998 and/or 1999 SISE? Those are the two that are not contained in the sports illustrated online "vault." Can't seem to find any solid scans online. If this requires any violation of law, obviously don't post etc. Thanks.