What to call this thread?
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
Olivia Dunne & Miller Lite bring the fun while Bud Light continues to flounder, Nancy Mace shoots a gun & MEAT
Plus: Ivanka Trump shows the LIBS what a real woman looks like at a fancy gala
By Joe Kinsey OutKick / Published April 30, 2026 9:19am EDTThese brands are playing with house money because they've decided to hire attractive, biological females to market their products.
The woke era — approximately 2018-2024 (when Trump was elected) — will be remembered by marketing agencies who thought trans in sports and trans/DEI marketing was a winning strategy. It was a disaster. Axios published a report in 2023 estimating woke had cost companies at least $28 billion in market value.
Now here we are with the pivot back to attractive women having a good time, even if they're fake suckin' down an American beer. The imagery isn't lost on those of us with a brain. We might hate Miller Lite beer, but the emotions created here are appreciated. It makes a segment of society feel alive again.
Olivia Dunne & Miller Lite bring the fun while Bud Light continues to flounder, Nancy Mace shoots a gun & MEAT
Bud Light hasn't featured a female celebrity on its Instagram page in over a year. Plus, rec baseball and the Thursday Night Mowing League both have season openers tonight.
www.foxnews.com
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Fact is, Bud does not taste like beer. It tastes like Bud.
And, as the saying goes, how is drinking American beer like having sex in a canoe? Answer - both are f-cking near water.
And, as the saying goes, how is drinking American beer like having sex in a canoe? Answer - both are f-cking near water.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
In a 5–2 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the right of Trans+ Montanans to change their legal identity documents to reflect who they are. Justice Laurie McKinnon, writing for the majority, was unequivocal: "Transgender discrimination is, by its very nature, sex discrimination" — and Montana's constitution expressly prohibits sex discrimination. The case began with Trans residents who simply wanted a driver's licence that says who they are. The court said the state had likely violated its own constitution by denying them. For now, accurate IDs stay accessible to Trans+ Montanans while the case proceeds. A red-state Supreme Court. A Trans+ community that refused to be erased. A win that lands
Shiftless2
Well-known member
New Zealand is updating its blood donation rules to allow gay and bi men to donate, following research showing it can be done safely
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Oregon has agreed to pay $295K to a transgender inmate housed in a men’s prison after allegations of abuse. The settlement comes as a response to the mistreatment and harsh conditions the inmate endured, shedding light on the challenges faced by transgender individuals in the prison system.
This legal decision serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles for equality and dignity that many LGBTQ individuals continue to face, especially within institutions that are meant to protect. The payout is a step toward accountability and reform, ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the protection they deserve.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
This is argument by anecdote. - fine -
The counter-argument could also be made by anecdote.
Shall we address this controversy by concluding full spectrum, it should be addressed on individual basis?
There's $big $problems with that approach. BUT
if we want to $save big on measuring wee-wees, perhaps it would make more sense
to present the argument with a scope commensurate with the problem.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Funny thing is they ran on states rights and they are now trying to usurp them
BREAKING
The White House just declared California VIOLATED Title IX for letting Trans girls play on girls' teams — and billions in school funding are on the line.
The Trump administration formally concluded its civil rights investigation into the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation — the body governing sports at more than 1,500 high schools — and announced that allowing transgender girls to compete in girls' sports violates
Title IX. Education Secretary Linda McMahon gave California 10 days to voluntarily comply, change its policies, and strip records and titles from transgender athletes. Or face losing federal funding.
California said no. The state's education officials refused to comply with the demand. Cal State University, whose trans athlete policies were separately targeted, sued the administration for "lawless overreach." California has a state law that explicitly allows students to compete on teams matching their gender identity — and state officials have said repeatedly they won't abandon that law to satisfy an executive order from Washington.
The dollar amounts being threatened are not symbolic. California's K-12 system receives billions in federal education funding annually. The administration knows a full funding cut would be politically catastrophic and likely blocked in court. What they're actually doing is building a slow-motion legal and financial pressure campaign: investigations, findings, voluntary compliance demands, and then threatened enforcement — designed to make the political cost of standing firm high enough that districts or universities eventually fold, even without a court order.
McMahon's statement twisted the knife deliberately: "Although Governor Gavin Newsom admitted months ago it was 'deeply unfair' to allow men to compete in women's sports, both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation continued to allow men to steal female athletes' well-deserved accolades." The framing calls trans girls "men." That's not accidental — it's official federal government language now.
Title IX was passed in 1972 to stop discrimination against women in education. The Trump administration is using it to target the most vulnerable girls in any school: transgender teenagers already navigating hostility from classmates, coaches, and now their own federal government. The explicit goal is to erase trans girls from school sports entirely — not to protect cis girls, who are not measurably harmed by trans teammates, but to score a political win by treating trans girls as impostors.
California has made clear it will fight. That matters. States that hold the line create the legal battles that ultimately reach federal courts — and courts have a mixed but not uniformly hostile record on trans student rights. The fight in California is the national fight. Watch closely what happens when the 10-day deadline expires.
SOURCE with comments
BREAKING
The Trump administration formally concluded its civil rights investigation into the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation — the body governing sports at more than 1,500 high schools — and announced that allowing transgender girls to compete in girls' sports violates
Title IX. Education Secretary Linda McMahon gave California 10 days to voluntarily comply, change its policies, and strip records and titles from transgender athletes. Or face losing federal funding.
California said no. The state's education officials refused to comply with the demand. Cal State University, whose trans athlete policies were separately targeted, sued the administration for "lawless overreach." California has a state law that explicitly allows students to compete on teams matching their gender identity — and state officials have said repeatedly they won't abandon that law to satisfy an executive order from Washington.
The dollar amounts being threatened are not symbolic. California's K-12 system receives billions in federal education funding annually. The administration knows a full funding cut would be politically catastrophic and likely blocked in court. What they're actually doing is building a slow-motion legal and financial pressure campaign: investigations, findings, voluntary compliance demands, and then threatened enforcement — designed to make the political cost of standing firm high enough that districts or universities eventually fold, even without a court order.
McMahon's statement twisted the knife deliberately: "Although Governor Gavin Newsom admitted months ago it was 'deeply unfair' to allow men to compete in women's sports, both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation continued to allow men to steal female athletes' well-deserved accolades." The framing calls trans girls "men." That's not accidental — it's official federal government language now.
Title IX was passed in 1972 to stop discrimination against women in education. The Trump administration is using it to target the most vulnerable girls in any school: transgender teenagers already navigating hostility from classmates, coaches, and now their own federal government. The explicit goal is to erase trans girls from school sports entirely — not to protect cis girls, who are not measurably harmed by trans teammates, but to score a political win by treating trans girls as impostors.
California has made clear it will fight. That matters. States that hold the line create the legal battles that ultimately reach federal courts — and courts have a mixed but not uniformly hostile record on trans student rights. The fight in California is the national fight. Watch closely what happens when the 10-day deadline expires.
SOURCE with comments
Last edited:
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Wonder how many gender neutral bathrooms your neighbor has
You don't have to be a rocket plumber to figure it out.
It means the residents have infinity-sized blathers.
The sciencey name for "gender neutral" is epicene.
So when a epicene person like fiction author I.P. Freely shows up
they'll have a choice.
It only took me 3 hours to figure that out, one hour per bathroom !
Shiftless2
Well-known member
It was never a problem until the transphobes started weighing in. And I stand by the pics in #1,607. If you want to restrict washroom or locker room access based on sex at birth ....
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Billie Eilish has recently sparked conversation around privacy and personal identity, with many supporters emphasizing that no one is obligated to publicly define or announce who they are. People should have the freedom to share their truth on their own terms, without pressure, judgment, or expectations from others.
In today’s digital age, public figures often face intense scrutiny over their personal lives, with audiences expecting constant transparency. However, many fans argue that identity is deeply personal and evolving, and it shouldn’t be treated as something owed to the public. The growing support for this perspective reflects a broader cultural shift toward respecting boundaries and individual autonomy.
This discussion also highlights how social media can amplify both support and pressure at the same time. While platforms give people a voice to express themselves, they can also create an environment where silence is questioned. Ultimately, the conversation reinforces a simple idea: everyone deserves the space to define themselves in their own time, without being pushed into labels or explanations.v
SOURCE
True, but substantially immaterial.
The sensible counterpoint being obfuscated here:
there are perverts that would wish to infiltrate public toilet facilities not for the intended purpose of attending to routine bodily functions, but instead for lascivious unethical purpose.
Even if some advocates of dubious policy have impure, repressive, punitive, destructive motive, at least they also have the fig leaf of legitimacy, taking reasonable steps to obstruct perverts.
There's plenty of room for quibble about the methodology to that end. Is there any legitimacy to the criticism of the objective?