#BoycottUlta - Biggest cosmetics retailer in US faces outrage and boycott

a reply to: Boadicea

Ulta Beauty faces BOYCOTT from angry female customers after inviting transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney onto podcast called The Joy of Girlhood where she vowed to become a mom

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The backlash has been swift and severe with subscribers to the podcast unimpressed with some accusing Dylan and Ulta for showcasing her as likening womanhood as 'something that can be worn like a costume'.

They slammed Mulvaney for describing her genitals as a 'Barbie pouch,' and also took exception to her previous chat of buying tampons.

Mulvaney has been accused of 'womanface' by some feminists, who claim she is play-acting the parts of a woman she enjoys, with none of the misogyny faced by females on a day-to-day basis.

Customers took to social media to slam the podcast, saying the company and influencer were 'trolling women'.

'In case you're wondering why such a visceral reaction to this thread, many of us are aware of just how disrespected we are by this person. Barbie pouch??? This must stop,' tweeted Jennifer.

'Barbie pouch!?! Wtaf. Getting your period unexpectedly, having painful periods for your whole life, seeing drs to try & figure out the cause with zero explanation and they're calling it a Barbie pouch…' wrote Millie Mae.

'Glad he can carry around tampons like they're fashion accessories, never having to experienced the misery of mensuration, especially as a 'girl'in middle school, a character he mocks, added another.

a reply to: infolurker

Thank you... WoLF and Kara Dansky has been fierce and tireless!!!

I meant to link to WoLF and then it completely went out of my head. They've been great about dealing with legislation and executive directives and guidelines. I receive their emails and newsletters and keep up with them that way.

a reply to: infolurker

Women's Liberation Front... Me I don't feel like joining any liberation front which makes no distinction between poor women and rich women, or poor trangenders and rich ones, or poor gays and rich ones... or between poor heteros and rich ones.

It is inequality what worries me, rather than with whom you make sex, or whether you feel a woman or a man within a man's or a woman's body. Difference is welcome; inequality is not.

originally posted by: Annee
Really?!?!?

This triggers you?

What?!?! Do you live in a box or something?

Yeah, everyone should be down with derogatory slurs. Ain't no big Thang, just like the n-word. We all use that all the time, amirite.

dp

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee
Really?!?!?

This triggers you?

What?!?! Do you live in a box or something?

Yeah, everyone should be down with derogatory slurs. Ain't no big Thang, just like the n-word. We all use that all the time, amirite.

Be specific.

What did you consider derogatory?

a reply to: Direne

Me I don't feel like joining any liberation front which makes no distinction between poor women and rich women, or poor trangenders and rich ones, or poor gays and rich ones... or between poor heteros and rich ones.

How and why does $$ matter when it comes to sex-based rights?

How and why are rich women's sex-based rights any more or less important than poor women's sex-based rights? And what about middle class women's sex-based rights? Yea or nay?

I am genuinely asking. I do not understand how economic class is relevant.

a reply to: Boadicea

Sex-based rights is clearly an unjust concept. You have rights, and obligations, because you are a person, regardless of whether you are a male or a female. And you all have the same rights, and the same obligations. Also, you all have the same rights, and obligations, regardless of the money you have in your bank.

However, you are fully aware this is not currently the case, nowhere. Hence, talking about sex-based rights is just a distraction that makes you forget you are a person. Your sex should be totally irrelevant in connection with your rights, and obligations.

One of these dudes is sponsored by tampax..let that sink in..er, maybe not a great way to put it, or maybe perfect

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Boadicea

Sex-based rights is clearly an unjust concept.

No, it's not an unjust concept, because it applies universal natural and civil rights in accordance with our sex-based functions, needs and realities.

For example, if we agree that we all have a natural right to voluntarily sterilize ourselves, then that is our universal right, but whereas a vasectomy would be a man's right, a tubal ligation would be a woman's right.

If we agree that we all have a right to protect and defend ourselves from known threats, and we know that too many men are a threat to women (and, yes, we do know that), then it is reasonable and practical to provide safe spaces for women where safety, privacy and dignity are warranted. Likewise, while women do not pose the same threat to men, by segregating spaces, men also have single-sex spaces where their privacy and dignity are protected.

If we agree that sports teams and competitions are a good thing, and we know that men's biology and anatomy give them an insurmountable advantage in sports, then single-sex sports protect the universal rights of all to compete on a level-playing field, rather than one class (female) having no chance of successfully competing against the other class.

These are not unjust concepts.

You have rights, and obligations, because you are a person, regardless of whether you are a male or a female.

Yup.

Also, you all have the same rights, and obligations, regardless of the money you have in your bank.

Of course. But we're not talking about sex-based rights for the rich vs sex-based rights for the poor vs sex-based rights for the middle class. Just sex-based rights for all.

However, you are fully aware this is not currently the case, nowhere.

I might be aware... but I don't know because I still don't understand what you are referring to. Who has what sex-based rights based on their economic status? Are you simply referring to the fact that rich women have access to healthcare (or something else) that poor women do not?

Hence, talking about sex-based rights is just a distraction that makes you forget you are a person.

Bull. Talking about sex-based rights is talking about sex-based rights. Not a distraction. It's a purpose. I get it. YOU have decided that sex-based rights are "unjust" and don't want to talk about it, much less protect and defend them. That ain't gonna happen.

Your sex should be totally irrelevant in connection with your rights, and obligations.

I have already explained above how our sex, and therefore our sex-based rights, are quite relevant.

originally posted by: vonclod
One of these dudes is sponsored by tampax..let that sink in..er, maybe not a great way to put it, or maybe perfect

Good One!

a reply to: Daughter2

Interesting!

Can you explain further, for those of us unfamiliar with this company??

originally posted by: vonclod
One of these dudes is sponsored by tampax..let that sink in..er, maybe not a great way to put it...

It could have been worse... but I'm not offering any suggestions!

...or maybe perfect

Maybe.

a reply to: Boadicea

In this society, rights are a commodity. They are bought and sold on the market. They have a price, and depending on the money you have, you may or may not be able to buy rights.

If you have money you can buy justice, health, education, security, housing. Buying rights is what this society has turned rights into.

You state the concept of sex-based rights applies universal natural and civil rights in accordance with your sex-based functions, needs and realities. This reduces to stating that there are biological-based rights, something that is clearly unjust because you cannot decide on your biology: you are born with it. Hence, talking about sex-based rights is not talking about sex-based rights: it is talking about rights based on biology, that is, based on something one is not responsible for, and something one has no say in at all.

I think you confuse rights with administrative authorizations, which are two separate and different things.

For example, there is no right to drive a car, no right to smoke, no right to wear tattoos. What do exist are permits and authorizations to drive a car, smoke or wear tattoos. There is the right to be free without anyone being able to control or authorize such a right. You have rights by the fact of being a person, you do not need anyone or anything to grant you a right.

There is nothing like a right to compete on a level-playing field, as you write. There are regulations. So yes, I agree we need to review and modify some laws and regulations, but leaving intact what cannot never be regulated: rights.

So I cannot defend women's, men's, trangenders', or fractal gender rights, for I only can defend human rights without any distinction based on what people happen to have as genitalia, and certainly regardless of what money they pretend to have to buy rights as if rights were a commodity.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: quintessentone

Somehow I don't think you want any more of my thoughts but I gotta ask what is informing your thoughts on this matter? I understand wanting to be charitable in your thoughts and opinions of others, but the trans activists have been very clear in their ideology and their demands, which are very different than what you are suggesting.

That's it in a nutshell, being charitable and wanting to understand their reality, rather pertaining to this thread, Dylan specifically.

I watched the entire interview with Dylan and David and my impression is that Dylan is in a learning and transitioning phase, getting counselling, and perhaps naively or from societal programming seeks an identity and security within the sterotypical model of a barbie doll. She admits to us all that she is learning, a student, and will be the first to apologize if she is wrong. I hope that is true. Did anyone on this thread watch the interview from start to finish?

They do not want new language. They want our language. They don't want to compromise with women. They want women to compromise with them. They don't want female body parts. They want their male body parts to be called female.

I don't clump everyone into a category then label them. I noticed that one transwoman wants to change the word vag. to 'front hole', whatever, that doesn't bother me because I'd prefer them renaming body parts to suit their particular situation. If they want their male body parts to be called female then they need counselling, because their transitioned body parts will never be female. If they are into denial then that's another issue to discuss.

And, yes, there is a HUGE element of misogyny among men who identify as women!!! They do, literally, think they are "better" women than women are. They literally want to re-define womanhood in their image.

There is a HUGE element of misogyny in all genders - it's still engrained in the societal programming - it's everywhere. I can't claim to know what they think because I am not a mindreader, nor are any of us. So, again we are talking about definitions they use to identify with a certain way of being, or a way of being that they think is where they can have a reality to how they feel, but how they feel is unique to them and so should their definitions and aspirations for a way of being.

Are you at all familiar with the hate and threats that the trans communities inflict on women who question their ideology and agenda? The threats of rape with their "lady penis" and violent threats of all kinds? Are you aware of the abuse that JK Rowling and others have endured from the trans community?

Hate and death threats are a two-way street from what I can ascertain with this issue.

My opinions are coming from a place of charity and an honest desire to understand their reality. I also question people's reality and how it was formed? was it through confirmation bias and picking and choosing what information to accept as the truth or looking at both sides?

a reply to: Annee

Barbie pouch?

Barbie pouch ... that's just gross in so many ways on so many levels.

a reply to: quintessentone

That's it in a nutshell, being charitable and wanting to understand their reality, rather pertaining to this thread, Dylan specifically.

That's understandable and fair enough.

I watched the entire interview with Dylan and David and my impression is that Dylan is in a learning and transitioning phase, getting counselling, and perhaps naively or from societal programming seeks an identity and security within the sterotypical model of a barbie doll. She admits to us all that she is learning, a student, and will be the first to apologize if she is wrong. I hope that is true.

Yes, he did admit that he is learning. And I would suggest that his first clue that he's not a woman, never was a woman, and never will be a woman is that he has to learn how to be a woman. The only apology I want to hear from him is for thinking he could be a woman and monopolizing women's identity for his own personal gain.

Did anyone on this thread watch the interview from start to finish?

I did not. I watched maybe ten minutes, wasn't impressed (exactly the opposite), and had no interest in watching more.

There is a HUGE element of misogyny in all genders - it's still engrained in the societal programming - it's everywhere.

True enough.

I can't claim to know what they think because I am not a mindreader, nor are any of us.

This is fair enough only when speaking of individuals and how they embrace or reject gender norms.

It's not fair enough when they are pushing a political and social agenda, in which they spell out very clearly what they demand. They have demanded to be thought of and treated as "real" woman in all ways by anyone and everyone -- "Trans women are women". They are demanding ridiculous re-definitions of female body parts and female bodily functions, as well as re-defining and feminizing their male body parts and bodily functions. And they are demanding laws and regulations to enforce their demands.

So, again we are talking about definitions they use to identify with a certain way of being, or a way of being that they think is where they can have a reality to how they feel, but how they feel is unique to them and so should their definitions and aspirations for a way of being.

Fair enough and I agree.

But this isn't what the political agenda is demanding. If this is what they wanted to do, and if this were what they are doing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is because they refuse to do so, and insist on corrupting and re-defining women's words via color of law and enforced with the barrel of a government gun, that we are having this conversation.

Hate and death threats are a two-way street from what I can ascertain with this issue.

My opinions are coming from a place of charity and an honest desire to understand their reality. I also question people's reality and how it was formed? was it through confirmation bias and picking and choosing what information to accept as the truth or looking at both sides?

I would be absolutely shocked if you could provide any such evidence, if only because anything deemed "transphobic" or "hateful" is regularly purged from social media. The attacks against "TERFs" and "transphobes" are left up though. I could provide plenty though. And have before.

But, more to the point, I very much doubt any women are threatening to rape men with their "lady penis"... In fact, I'd bet even without censoring, there would only be a very small fraction of women posting any violent threats against trans people.

Thank you for explaining and expanding. I appreciate your generosity of spirit. I hope the trans community changes their spots and live up to your opinion. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Boadicea

In this society, rights are a commodity. They are bought and sold on the market. They have a price, and depending on the money you have, you may or may not be able to buy rights.

Screw that. Rights are endowed by our Creator... Nature's god. As much as some people want to take that away, I'm saying HELL NO!

If you have money you can buy justice, health, education, security, housing. Buying rights is what this society has turned rights into.

No. You can buy off a corrupt judge and prosecutor. That isn't justice. You can obtain better medical care when you do get sick, but cannot buy perfect health. You can buy an education, but no one can learn for you.

There is much wrong with our society and legal system, but playing the same games isn't the solution.

You state the concept of sex-based rights applies universal natural and civil rights in accordance with your sex-based functions, needs and realities. This reduces to stating that there are biological-based rights, something that is clearly unjust because you cannot decide on your biology: you are born with it. Hence, talking about sex-based rights is not talking about sex-based rights: it is talking about rights based on biology, that is, based on something one is not responsible for, and something one has no say in at all.

Nope. You are ignoring the concept of universal rights for all, to be protected and defended according to need. Biological and anatomical differences require different solutions for different conditions to be determined by ourselves.

I think you confuse rights with administrative authorizations, which are two separate and different things.

Authorities have no place in determining rights. Authorities are there to protect and defend rights, not "authorize" them.

For example, there is no right to drive a car, no right to smoke, no right to wear tattoos.

Actually, yes, we do have the right to drive a car, or any motor vehicle, founded in large part upon our enumerated right to travel freely between the states. If we choose to operate such equipment on public roads, then we must agree to follow certain laws and rules for the safety of others. On your own property, no such laws and regs apply.

I am well aware of the many many people who want to trample our right to smoke, drink, eat too much, wear tattoos, and so on and so forth. It seems that "my body my choice" only applies until it doesn't. However, it is a violation of our rights... it doesn't mean it is not our right. If we can do it for ourselves and by ourselves, then it's our right.

Are you familiar with the 9th Amendment?

What do exist are permits and authorizations to drive a car, smoke or wear tattoos.

All such laws and regs are intended to ensure that we do so safely, and without undue risk or harm to others, which would be a violation of others' rights. It is a means of protecting and defending our rights to do these things safely.

There is the right to be free without anyone being able to control or authorize such a right. You have rights by the fact of being a person, you do not need anyone or anything to grant you a right.

You seem to be arguing the opposite.

There is nothing like a right to compete on a level-playing field, as you write.

We all have a right to choose who we will and will not associate with, who we assemble with, etc. We have every right to decide to compete with others and the terms and conditions of those competitions. Some competitions are divided by age. Some competitions are divided by weight or size. Some competitions are decided by sex. All to create a level playing field and genuine competition.

Women have every right to decide to compete with other women only, and women have the right to choose not to. But men do not have the right to demand that women compete with them. Nor do women have the right to demand that men compete with women. No one has the right to demand that anyone must compete with them.

There are regulations. So yes, I agree we need to review and modify some laws and regulations, but leaving intact what cannot never be regulated: rights.

Correct. Rights can only be protected and defended. And where rights conflict, they must be balanced.

A woman doesn’t need make-up to look like a woman, however it’s almost essential that a man wears make-up to pull off the illusion of looking like a woman, lol, and rarely ever look like a biological female even with make-up. As a woman, I find trans “females” to generally be quite self centered and demanding and lacking respect for actual woman. Sorry, that’s how I feel

a reply to: infolurker

What kind of lunatic thought this was a good idea?

Oh yeah...a liberal.