Serious Question About Gender and Models

[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.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bapedi]

I think some of this about inherent contradictions that have always plagued the swimsuit issue (and the display of beautiful women in general). Is it solely about appealing to the male gaze? Or is there another dimension to it? In this specific, this is "Sports Illustrated" and not "Maxim" so there has always been a weird element of dissonance here. Maybe that dissonance has always been a lame excuse from men who wanted to say "no, of course this isn't a soft-core porn magazine" but the dissonance does exist.

 

Given the dissonance, the magazine clearly wants to take a stance that the swimsuit issue is about *more* than just the male gaze--it is trying to be (at least halfheartedly) a celebration of female beauty and dynamism for its own sake. Once you make the distinction of "this isn't meant to cater to the widest range of male preferences possible" you get more variety naturally, which could include heavier women or transwomen. I think it is positive to have celebrations of female beauty in society so I am all for us continuing these in new, more comfortable formats. I think people have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the notion that female beauty only exists for a narrow range of male tastes. More inclusive notions of female beauty could bring pros and cons to any given taste. You might see *more* of certain models who you think are particularly beautiful. For example, I remember at one time Sports Illustrated had fewer photos of Marisa Miller because she did not lose all the weight they wanted of her. I think she was gorgeous at the time and this was a total loss for everyone. 

I think you will still be able to gets photos of gorgeous women in beautiful settings by buying SI--maybe you just find the whole thing much less necessary, like most people? I'm guessing I am pretty similar to most others in that I have always had specific tastes. For instance, looking back at Sports Illustrated Swim from 2001 (on Bellazon) you will find a wide variety of women. I find a few of these women incredibly compelling and others much less so. I find it highly unlikely any person looks at every picture in a given issue equally--I know many models I would ignore completely. Last year's issue had photos of Josephine Skriver, who I think the vast majority of males find to be one of the most gorgeous women in existence, so I don't think we're losing a lot by being more inclusive. If you think it is a poor value prospect to buy a magazine to get a mixed bag of photos that aren't all to your taste, you are probably in agreement with most of the internet. I would argue it has always been that way, but now we have other options. I don't think you should pin your frustrations on the inclusion of heavier women or trans women, because these women deserve representation in society and media, and going forward most people will not find it comfortable to systematically exclude them from anything that isn't fully pornographic. That's just my two cents, though--hope my perspective helps you think about this issue.

[Gravalaka]

What's the backstory on telling Marisa to lose weight?