Wrong, TIME Magazine: There Are ONLY Two Genders!
TIME Magazine likes to pretend it's a serious periodical, but they get many a factual thing wrong. Like when they suggested Democrats should stop paying taxes to protest Trump. Or when they made Angela Merkel "Person of the Year" rather than Potato of the Year. Don't worry, TIME. Everyone makes mistakes. But some of us more than others. Enter this new cover story suggesting there are more than two genders. Not your best moment. Don't frame this one for your wall, m'kay?
This week's TIME cover story, with exclusive data from GLAAD, explores a change taking hold in American culture. The piece explores how you-do-you young people are questioning the conventions that when it comes to gender and sexuality, there are only two options for each: male or female, gay or straight.
Young people "are not just saying 'Screw you,'" says Ritch Savin-Williams, a professor emeritus of psychology at Cornell University who studies sexual behavior. Their embrace of a vast array of identities "says, 'Your terms, what you're trying to do, does not reflect my reality or the reality of my friends.'"
Firstly, the "genderqueer" chick on the cover who's supposed to be hulk smashing gender stereotypes? Notice how she's posed in a feminine way, with long hair and airbrushed skin. Also, notice the large eyes, pouted lips, and perfect complexion? Yeah, she's definitely a mild subspecies of androgynous social justice snot gobblers. Parallel this to when NatGeo ran its own "anti-gender" cover story. There's a pattern here even the blind can notice. It's one where the TrigglyPuffs of the movement are notably absent from magazine covers, opting instead for more photogenic humanoids.
"Brave" is when you put this quaking marshmallow dump truck on a cover. But even leftists aren't ready to release photos of LGBT's unedited gutter hags...
But moving on to the heart of the issue, TIME is hastily peddling an agenda rooted not in science, but in liberal narrative pushing. There's no such thing as "my reality" vs "your reality." There's an objective reality in which there are only two sets of genitalia, and thus only two genders. Still confused? Peep thy nether regions, employing a mirror if necessary (say, if you're female).
Easy peasy. We're done here.
The non-science behind these statements are giggle-worthy. Or would be, if people's bodies weren't be destroyed in the name of social justice jihadism. Yet publications that fancy themselves reputable establishments, like TIME, keep running these anti-reality narratives. Mostly in a shallow attempt to bestow credibility onto these genderless, frumpy dumplings. Protip: don't do that.
The other reason TIME et al is pushing the gender-free movement is to slap tradition, normalcy, and reality right upside the better looking, less pierced, healthier face. While claiming the mantle of being both "pro-science" and "pro-tolerance," as it sets fire to both.
But remember, liberalism is the "party of science..."