I don't think these analogies really work, because when it comes down to it -- a (wooden) bookcase is wood. Michelangelo's David is Marble. It has not been transformed into another underlying substance.
At the genetic level a transgender woman is a man but, just as though we don't refer to Michelangelo's David as just a hunk of marble, we shouldn't classify a transgender woman as just a man. Is Napoleon correct in stating that a transgender woman is genetically a man? Yes, but does that really identify that person? If Michelangelo's David is just a hunk of marble then why do we attribute so much significance to it? Marble countertops aren't considered national treasures.
Reducing a person's gender identity to just his or her genetics is missing the forest for the trees. Gender and gender identity are complex things. Trying to use a simple binary criteria for such a complex structure is like trying to say Michelangelo's David is the same as a countertop.
At the genetic level a transgender woman is a man but, just as though we don't refer to Michelangelo's David as just a hunk of marble, we shouldn't classify a transgender woman as just a man. Is Napoleon correct in stating that a transgender woman is genetically a man? Yes, but does that really identify that person? If Michelangelo's David is just a hunk of marble then why do we attribute so much significance to it? Marble countertops aren't considered national treasures.
Thast all good and well, but we don't say that Michelangelo's David is not marble. It is. It's a marble statue. It has become more, but it has not ceased to be marble.
I'm not arguing that your position is wrong (here), I'm arguing that your analogy doesn't work.
the question ultimately comes down to "what is a 'woman'"? Is it the underlying sex of the individual, or is it the "gender identity" of the individual?
Thast all good and well, but we don't say that Michelangelo's David is not marble. It is. It's a marble statue. It has become more, but it has not ceased to be marble.
I'm not arguing that your position is wrong (here), I'm arguing that your analogy doesn't work.
Good point, but analogy's are rarely 1-to-1 in every way. I'm saying that Michelangelo's David might be marble but it's more than just marble. A transgender woman might have a Y chromosome but there's more to identity than chromosomes. I wasn't really trying to address any sort of substance alchemy with my analogy but trying to show that we don't reduce objects to just constituent parts when referring to them. As you said, Michelangelo's David is a marble statue.
Women are born with XX chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXX).
Men are born with XY chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXY or XXYY).
What is Jenna's chromosomal pair? XX or XY?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Women are born with XX chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXX).
Men are born with XY chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXY or XXYY).
What is Jenna's chromosomal pair? XX or XY?
Nobody is contesting this. Just go ahead and state "I consider gender and sex to be the same thing" and be done with it.
Women Females are born with XX chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXX). Men Males are born with XY chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXY or XXYY).
What is Jenna's chromosomal pair? XX or XY?
Her chromosomes are XY. Her sex is male. Her gender is female (she has a ******). Her gender identity is female.
Her chromosomes are XY. Her sex is male. Her gender is female (she has a ******). Her gender identity is female.
Then why should someone with a XY chromosomal pair be allowed to compete in an event where all other participants are XX?
Especially since those same XXs would be disqualified from a transgender/transsexual pageant where all other participants are XY.
Why is it okay to discriminate against natural-born XXs, but not against artificially-altered XYs?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Her chromosomes are XY. Her sex is male. Her gender is female (she has a ******). Her gender identity is female.
Wait, what? Since when is there a third category here? So confused. Jennas sex is male. Jennas gender identity is female. I get that. But what the hell is gender if its not one of those two?
Then why should someone with a XY chromosomal pair be allowed to compete in an event where all other participants are XX?
It depends on how the pageant organizer wants to define eligibility. I think it's silly to make a distinction based on genetics when US law doesn't.
The pageant organizer is certainly within their rights to determine eligibility this way. They could also mandate that only natural blondes are eligible. Most people would probably think that's silly though.
Wait, what? Since when is there a third category here? So confused. Jennas sex is male. Jennas gender identity is female. I get that. But what the hell is gender if its not one of those two?
It's my wife's sociology degree rubbing off on me. She makes the distinction between gender and gender identity to deal with pre-op transgender people. I'm not really sure if its necessary to add another layer, but she's beat it into me over the years.
Sex = genetics
Gender = genitalia
Gender identity = self-identification
Then why aren't you equally outraged about the transsexual/transgender pageants that don't allow natural-born XXs to participate?
I didn't claim to be outraged. Like a few here I find pageants silly and find this whole affair even sillier since it wouldn't be obvious that the contestant in question used to have a *****.
I was merely chiming in because Napoleon has tried to make this a little too simple. Sex and gender are complicated.
What I find really fascinating about this is pageants are usually more about conformance to gender roles than gender itself.
These are distinct categories. They may have some overlap. A female is different from a transsexual female. A transsexual female can have a gender identity of female, but they are not categorically female.
Transsexuals share a gender identity with the sex opposite theirs. This does not make them female or male. It makes them transsexual female or transsexual male.
If transsexual brains are really different than their sex, then that means they are a new category, distinct from the two normal genders. Arguing that them having part of female physiology (brain) means that their genetics don't matter and they are 100% female is just as bad as arguing their brains don't matter, only genetics do (and they are 100% male). They can have a 100% female or male gender identity, but this does not override their genetics, and vice versa.
These are fluid descriptions that require new categories. I will never refer to a transsexual as female because that is not correct. They are a transsexual female. Their physiology and genetics (if what is claimed about transsexual's brains is true) is distinct from male and female.
Of course, I don't know the extent to which their brains are different. I don't even know what the differences between male and female brains are. Which begs the question, are their brains distinct enough to require the above categories? i.e. would they still be overwhelmingly physiologically male? Is it possible for a male physiological brain to have small differences which lead to the desire to be female but remain physiologically more male than female? Would such a brain be male or female? How do you define what a male and female brain is? These are all strange and inexact questions that deal more with semantics than anything.
But yeah, my position is that both sides are wrong. If we want to be correct, transsexuals are neither male nor female, they are transsexual (assuming the claim that transsexual brains are physiologically different is true). If you want to refer to them as female because you are think their gender identity should be referred togo right ahead, but do so with the assumption that we are talking about a distinct transsexual female category.
I don't mind if a transgender woman competes in Miss Universe but I do mind if a transgender woman with the build of a man competes in track and field against other women.
That's a sticky conversation. I recall the Caster Semenya debacle (not strictly the same situation, but raises a lot of similar debate).
If you want to get really technical, Jenna's male genetics may provide minute benefits insofar as fat distribution. Whether or not that edge is substantial enough to make her participation unfair to other contestants is debatable. I honestly doubt the people who disqualified her thought that far into it.
Women are born with XX chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXX).
Men are born with XY chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXY or XXYY).
What is Jenna's chromosomal pair? XX or XY?
You have made a flawed assumption.
MOST women are born with XX. MOST men are born XY. Some women are born XY, but have other genetic changes that make them abnormally affected by testosterone, or a number of other developmental issues, such that they come out as normal women but are genetically XY. There are also cases of XXY individuals and so on.
To answer your question: Jenna's chromosome pair is probably XY. You couldn't be sure of it without a genetic test, though. And you can't be sure that any other competitor is XX without a genetic test.
I still want someone here, who is so vehemently defending "Jenna," to explain why it is okay for transsexual/transgender pageants to discrimination against XX women, but it's wrong for Miss Universe to discriminate against a XY "woman" who was born as a man.
I think you're mixing criteria. If the criteria for entering a woman's pageant is "be a woman", then a transgender woman qualifies (assuming the definition of woman used does not explicitly exclude transgender). If the criteria for entering a transgender woman's pageant is to be a transgender woman then a non-transgender woman of course doesn't fit the criteria.
I think you're mixing criteria. If the criteria for entering a woman's pageant is "be a woman", then a transgender woman qualifies (assuming the definition of woman used does not explicitly exclude transgender). If the criteria for entering a transgender woman's pageant is to be a transgender woman then a non-transgender woman of course doesn't fit the criteria.
But the pageant is probably looking for those that are sexually female, not just anyone who claims a female gender identity.
But the pageant is probably looking for those that are sexually female, not just anyone who claims a female gender identity.
Fair enough. If that's the criteria laid out then a transgender woman can't compete. If the criteria are changed in response to a transgender woman competing or applying to compete then there's a problem.
Note, I have absolutely no idea what the criteria are in this specific instance. The linked article isn't quite clear and I'm too lazy to go look it up.
It's my wife's sociology degree rubbing off on me. She makes the distinction between gender and gender identity to deal with pre-op transgender people. I'm not really sure if its necessary to add another layer, but she's beat it into me over the years.
Sex = genetics
Gender = genitalia
Gender identity = self-identification
So, if someone is in a horrible car accident and get mutilated "down there", they suddenly are non-gendered? Adding the layer of gender = genetalia seems off to me. I understand the "self identification" thing, I disagree with it, but I understand it. The third layer, however, makes no sense to me.
Fair enough. If that's the criteria laid out then a transgender woman can't compete. If the criteria are changed in response to a transgender woman competing or applying to compete then there's a problem.
Note, I have absolutely no idea what the criteria are in this specific instance. The linked article isn't quite clear and I'm too lazy to go look it up.
I think its more likely that the criteria were ambiguous, but are now stating less ambiguously what they meant all along.
So, if someone is in a horrible car accident and get mutilated "down there", they suddenly are non-gendered? Adding the layer of gender = genetalia seems off to me. I understand the "self identification" thing, I disagree with it, but I understand it. The third layer, however, makes no sense to me.
Yeah, it's probably not really necessary. Really I was just going off of what my wife had hammered me on during our many discussions on the issue while she was getting her sociology degree.
I guess you could say the person in your scenario would have a gender of neuter.
I did mention the anomalies (like XXX, or XXY, or XXYY).
I still want someone here, who is so vehemently defending "Jenna," to explain why it is okay for transsexual/transgender pageants to discrimination against XX women, but it's wrong for Miss Universe to discriminate against a XY "woman" who was born as a man.
Honestly? If you had a man who was born as a woman, and was transgendered as a man who is transgendered as a woman, it wouldn't be that much different. Of course, whether a well-meaning (in the sense that it's not a publicity stunt to trash on the transgender competition) non-transgender woman should be allowed to compete is a different question, and I don't have a good answer. Whether or not the answer to that question should be yes, I think the answer on the Miss Universe competition should be yes - I don't think they're the same question.
If Miss Universe wants a rule against transgenders, that's up to them. And people who are against that kind of discrimination are also totally within their rights to boycott/speak out. All of the biological requirements that have been proposed have flaws, though.
So does that mean the transsexual/transgendered beauty pageants are bad and mean-spirited because they won't let a XX compete against the XYs?
If I throw a party for everyone in this forum but tell you, "I didn't mean you," when you show up that's mean spirited. Changing the criteria (or making it unambiguous as bLatch points out) could be mean spirited when you're doing it to specifically exclude people you didn't really want in the first place.
If I throw a party for everyone on my block then I obviously don't mean you (unless you do live on my block. How crazy would that be?!). It's not like I'm discriminating against you if I throw a party for people who live close to me and you happen to not live close to me.
If a guy shaved every last hair off his body, tattooed himself from head to toe in scales, and forked mis tongue he would still be a human, not a reptile. No matter how convinced he was that he is a reptile, it wouldn't be true. And anyone who would "believe" that he is a thicket basilisk and not a human is pretty ignorant.
Then it gets even crazier. This human would have supporters who insist that "because he believes in every way hes a reptile, and has chosen to be a reptile, he is therefore a reptile and everyone who doesn't accept that ignorant or discriminant."
So if we had "bring your reptile" day at the zoo, you could bring him. The attendees would be have to pretend to accept the fact he is a reptile. Children would be staring in awe and confusion, asking questions because they realize he isn't a reptile. Parents would have to lie to their kids and tell them he is indeed a reptile, because he made that choice and firmly believes he is, and everyone is supposed to blindly accept this. The zoo wouldn't be able to disqualify him as a reptile, because society would cry out ignorance and discrimination, while preaching acceptance.
HELLOOOOOO! its a MAN with a whole hella lot of body modification >_> even if he did a REALLY good job and had textured skin and scales implanted, hes not a reptile. Nor does heavy body alterations make this guy a woman. It would make him a T-Girl (and a pretty hot one at that) and generally referred to as "she", but no matter how convinced he/she/society is, its still a man with a lot of alterations.
Letting him into the competition means letting a man with alot of alterations into the miss universe pageant. Supporting the idea he deserves to be in the contest, is supporting the idea that men are allowed to enter the pageant.
So does beauty play a factor in some supporters opinion? If someones reptile alterations are better than another guys, is one of them accepted as a reptile and the other isn't because he wasn't convincing enough? What if he eats insects?
At the genetic level a transgender woman is a man but, just as though we don't refer to Michelangelo's David as just a hunk of marble, we shouldn't classify a transgender woman as just a man. Is Napoleon correct in stating that a transgender woman is genetically a man? Yes, but does that really identify that person? If Michelangelo's David is just a hunk of marble then why do we attribute so much significance to it? Marble countertops aren't considered national treasures.
Reducing a person's gender identity to just his or her genetics is missing the forest for the trees. Gender and gender identity are complex things. Trying to use a simple binary criteria for such a complex structure is like trying to say Michelangelo's David is the same as a countertop.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Thast all good and well, but we don't say that Michelangelo's David is not marble. It is. It's a marble statue. It has become more, but it has not ceased to be marble.
I'm not arguing that your position is wrong (here), I'm arguing that your analogy doesn't work.
the question ultimately comes down to "what is a 'woman'"? Is it the underlying sex of the individual, or is it the "gender identity" of the individual?
I dug up a couple of studies in a previous discussion.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Good point, but analogy's are rarely 1-to-1 in every way. I'm saying that Michelangelo's David might be marble but it's more than just marble. A transgender woman might have a Y chromosome but there's more to identity than chromosomes. I wasn't really trying to address any sort of substance alchemy with my analogy but trying to show that we don't reduce objects to just constituent parts when referring to them. As you said, Michelangelo's David is a marble statue.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Women are born with XX chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXX).
Men are born with XY chromosomal pairs (aside from anomalies like XXY or XXYY).
What is Jenna's chromosomal pair? XX or XY?
Nobody is contesting this. Just go ahead and state "I consider gender and sex to be the same thing" and be done with it.
Her chromosomes are XY. Her sex is male. Her gender is female (she has a ******). Her gender identity is female.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Then why should someone with a XY chromosomal pair be allowed to compete in an event where all other participants are XX?
Especially since those same XXs would be disqualified from a transgender/transsexual pageant where all other participants are XY.
Why is it okay to discriminate against natural-born XXs, but not against artificially-altered XYs?
Wait, what? Since when is there a third category here? So confused. Jennas sex is male. Jennas gender identity is female. I get that. But what the hell is gender if its not one of those two?
It depends on how the pageant organizer wants to define eligibility. I think it's silly to make a distinction based on genetics when US law doesn't.
The pageant organizer is certainly within their rights to determine eligibility this way. They could also mandate that only natural blondes are eligible. Most people would probably think that's silly though.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
It's my wife's sociology degree rubbing off on me. She makes the distinction between gender and gender identity to deal with pre-op transgender people. I'm not really sure if its necessary to add another layer, but she's beat it into me over the years.
Sex = genetics
Gender = genitalia
Gender identity = self-identification
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I didn't claim to be outraged. Like a few here I find pageants silly and find this whole affair even sillier since it wouldn't be obvious that the contestant in question used to have a *****.
I was merely chiming in because Napoleon has tried to make this a little too simple. Sex and gender are complicated.
What I find really fascinating about this is pageants are usually more about conformance to gender roles than gender itself.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Male- biological sex= male, gender identification= male
Female- biological sex= female, gender identification= female
Transsexual female= biological sex=male, gender identification= female
These are distinct categories. They may have some overlap. A female is different from a transsexual female. A transsexual female can have a gender identity of female, but they are not categorically female.
Transsexuals share a gender identity with the sex opposite theirs. This does not make them female or male. It makes them transsexual female or transsexual male.
If transsexual brains are really different than their sex, then that means they are a new category, distinct from the two normal genders. Arguing that them having part of female physiology (brain) means that their genetics don't matter and they are 100% female is just as bad as arguing their brains don't matter, only genetics do (and they are 100% male). They can have a 100% female or male gender identity, but this does not override their genetics, and vice versa.
These are fluid descriptions that require new categories. I will never refer to a transsexual as female because that is not correct. They are a transsexual female. Their physiology and genetics (if what is claimed about transsexual's brains is true) is distinct from male and female.
Of course, I don't know the extent to which their brains are different. I don't even know what the differences between male and female brains are. Which begs the question, are their brains distinct enough to require the above categories? i.e. would they still be overwhelmingly physiologically male? Is it possible for a male physiological brain to have small differences which lead to the desire to be female but remain physiologically more male than female? Would such a brain be male or female? How do you define what a male and female brain is? These are all strange and inexact questions that deal more with semantics than anything.
But yeah, my position is that both sides are wrong. If we want to be correct, transsexuals are neither male nor female, they are transsexual (assuming the claim that transsexual brains are physiologically different is true). If you want to refer to them as female because you are think their gender identity should be referred togo right ahead, but do so with the assumption that we are talking about a distinct transsexual female category.
That's a sticky conversation. I recall the Caster Semenya debacle (not strictly the same situation, but raises a lot of similar debate).
If you want to get really technical, Jenna's male genetics may provide minute benefits insofar as fat distribution. Whether or not that edge is substantial enough to make her participation unfair to other contestants is debatable. I honestly doubt the people who disqualified her thought that far into it.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
You have made a flawed assumption.
MOST women are born with XX. MOST men are born XY. Some women are born XY, but have other genetic changes that make them abnormally affected by testosterone, or a number of other developmental issues, such that they come out as normal women but are genetically XY. There are also cases of XXY individuals and so on.
To answer your question: Jenna's chromosome pair is probably XY. You couldn't be sure of it without a genetic test, though. And you can't be sure that any other competitor is XX without a genetic test.
I think you're mixing criteria. If the criteria for entering a woman's pageant is "be a woman", then a transgender woman qualifies (assuming the definition of woman used does not explicitly exclude transgender). If the criteria for entering a transgender woman's pageant is to be a transgender woman then a non-transgender woman of course doesn't fit the criteria.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
But the pageant is probably looking for those that are sexually female, not just anyone who claims a female gender identity.
Fair enough. If that's the criteria laid out then a transgender woman can't compete. If the criteria are changed in response to a transgender woman competing or applying to compete then there's a problem.
Note, I have absolutely no idea what the criteria are in this specific instance. The linked article isn't quite clear and I'm too lazy to go look it up.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
So, if someone is in a horrible car accident and get mutilated "down there", they suddenly are non-gendered? Adding the layer of gender = genetalia seems off to me. I understand the "self identification" thing, I disagree with it, but I understand it. The third layer, however, makes no sense to me.
I think its more likely that the criteria were ambiguous, but are now stating less ambiguously what they meant all along.
Yeah, it's probably not really necessary. Really I was just going off of what my wife had hammered me on during our many discussions on the issue while she was getting her sociology degree.
I guess you could say the person in your scenario would have a gender of neuter.
If that's the case then of course it's bad. It's certainly mean-spirited. "I'm sorry, Moe. I didn't mean everybody everybody, hope you don't mind."
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Unless they used the term "woman" in which case the ambiguity was not there when the rules were initially set, and has only crept in over time.
30 years ago Gender and Sex were interchangeable. In many peoples minds, they still are.
Honestly? If you had a man who was born as a woman, and was transgendered as a man who is transgendered as a woman, it wouldn't be that much different. Of course, whether a well-meaning (in the sense that it's not a publicity stunt to trash on the transgender competition) non-transgender woman should be allowed to compete is a different question, and I don't have a good answer. Whether or not the answer to that question should be yes, I think the answer on the Miss Universe competition should be yes - I don't think they're the same question.
If Miss Universe wants a rule against transgenders, that's up to them. And people who are against that kind of discrimination are also totally within their rights to boycott/speak out. All of the biological requirements that have been proposed have flaws, though.
If I throw a party for everyone in this forum but tell you, "I didn't mean you," when you show up that's mean spirited. Changing the criteria (or making it unambiguous as bLatch points out) could be mean spirited when you're doing it to specifically exclude people you didn't really want in the first place.
If I throw a party for everyone on my block then I obviously don't mean you (unless you do live on my block. How crazy would that be?!). It's not like I'm discriminating against you if I throw a party for people who live close to me and you happen to not live close to me.
Good point. I'm just surprised that this sort of situation hasn't happened before now.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
I'm not. To be brutally honest, most transgendered individuals are not passing, and the ones that are typically go out of their way to hide that fact.
Then it gets even crazier. This human would have supporters who insist that "because he believes in every way hes a reptile, and has chosen to be a reptile, he is therefore a reptile and everyone who doesn't accept that ignorant or discriminant."
So if we had "bring your reptile" day at the zoo, you could bring him. The attendees would be have to pretend to accept the fact he is a reptile. Children would be staring in awe and confusion, asking questions because they realize he isn't a reptile. Parents would have to lie to their kids and tell them he is indeed a reptile, because he made that choice and firmly believes he is, and everyone is supposed to blindly accept this. The zoo wouldn't be able to disqualify him as a reptile, because society would cry out ignorance and discrimination, while preaching acceptance.
HELLOOOOOO! its a MAN with a whole hella lot of body modification >_> even if he did a REALLY good job and had textured skin and scales implanted, hes not a reptile. Nor does heavy body alterations make this guy a woman. It would make him a T-Girl (and a pretty hot one at that) and generally referred to as "she", but no matter how convinced he/she/society is, its still a man with a lot of alterations.
Letting him into the competition means letting a man with alot of alterations into the miss universe pageant. Supporting the idea he deserves to be in the contest, is supporting the idea that men are allowed to enter the pageant.
So does beauty play a factor in some supporters opinion? If someones reptile alterations are better than another guys, is one of them accepted as a reptile and the other isn't because he wasn't convincing enough? What if he eats insects?
My Buying Thread