Hmm. I don't like the temporal setting, pre-TOS. As forward-thinking as TOS was for the 60s, bridge officers and brass clearly tended to be male. Now, pre-TOS, we've got a female Captain and 1st Officer on the same ship. Plus, Enterprise already tried the whole prequel thing and was generally not as warmly received as the other series.

Don't like the look of the Klingons. The whole Levodian flu thing was clearly a retcon to distinguish them from humans beyond bushy eyebrows and bronze makeup, but it was a definite improvement and set the standard going forward. Why mess with that?

The bit about "never being able to learn Vulcan" (language) made me jump to the conclusion that Sonequa Martin-Green's character was going to be a young Uhura. Guess that is wrong. She's looking foxy as hell though -- probably the best thing about the trailer in my opinion!

I guess I agree with a lot here that seem to have some doubts about this. Willing and hopeful to be proven wrong though!

I've driven my wife to work and watched a lady next to me do her makeup (with the visor down and mirror open) while doing the phone pin thing. The same lady was weaving through thick traffic trying to somehow save 10 seconds or so on her trip to wherever she was headed.

It is kind of like that other video about the lady cutting in line, https://videosift.com/video/Man-Addressing-Entitled-Woman-Who-Cuts-The-Line, some people just think their time is more important than yours or the lives of the people in your car.

Only thing scarier than a alligator in the sewer is an alligator in the sewer wearing clown makeup.

Thing that really sticks in my throat here.

The most generous current estimate of trans % by population is 0.6%.

The mother of the child here is a vehement and very pro-active trans rights campaigner.

I don't know the proportion of life long trans campaigners, but I'm pretty sure the odds of them having a trans kid are vanishingly small. Much more so for such an extreme and unusual case as this one.

We are both relegated to pure speculation here but, I know at least one example (my brothers partner) of a girl being raised by a lesbian mother, who had deep emotional problems instilled into her from a very early age. i.e. men are bad, she should be attracted to women etc.

Took her well into adulthood to get over that and she is still a mixed up person (mother is to put it politely; a bit mental)

This is a different example of course, but the underlying problem and how it messed her up for most of her childhood seems like it could be similar. We are so used to the prejudices against "normal" gender roles and sexual orientation that it is perhaps easy to forget that this can work just as easily in reverse.
The problem can essentially be asshole parents instilling a mixed up and narrow concept of what is normal. Which either restricts their existing exploration of identity, or actively coerces towards a particular outcome.

IDK, you may just be right and the kid manifested this underlying genetic problem at a very early age. Her mother may be a perfectly even handed and caring person etc. etc.

It just concerns me that it could so easily be the other way around. But you are right about many people simply adopting alternative gender roles rather than physically transitioning. But if this kid starts the hormone blockers, she is sterile for life and will undergo irreversible changes in her development.

If she were to change her mind later in life as she matures... that 40% suicide rate is no joke

& yeh there are certainly strong arguments from inside the trans community against ideas of non binary genders. Most trans people are one gender wishing to transition to, or be treated as the other gender.

I can see an argument for perhaps having a third intermediary gender, beyond that it seems more like lifestyle choices than actual gender issues. e.g. like you say a T.V. man who likes to dress as a woman isn't someone who wants to be a woman, or even gay. It's just a man who likes to feel beautiful in a dress and makeup (to quote Eddie Izzard "male lesbian").

Anyway I don't think you have said anything offensive. This is a mire of a subject and anyone reasonable is going to appreciate your (our) confusion & concerns.

Looks like Lady Gaga.


You know, sans makeup.

Science makeup parody

Drawn-on eyebrows and eye shadow? I'd say that's a little more than stage makeup. It's no longer just a stage. It's full-on commitment.

So then, why on earth do you think they are forcing it to happen?
The law REQUIRES men to use women's rooms, and vice versa. They are making it EASIER for men to go into women's rooms, because they REQUIRE it by law now. They don't have to go in drag or wear makeup, they just have to say they were BORN a woman and saunter right in.
What brain dead idiocy they've made into law here. They have required by law the very thing they were trying to outlaw.

I love the little poke at the end. It's those special touches that make a great makeup artist.

@ChaosEngine

So yeah, there's a lot of common ground. Of course there is: values can overlap ideologies; something that, let's say, 'the kind of feminism I dislike' refuses to allow. Everything that says women should be treated reasonably is feminism, which gives us the credibility to declare that anyone who opposes any aspect of feminist doctrine hates women.

I think the concept you're talking about is a part of the makeup of any rational person's mind, and indeed advocacy on its behalf is still necessary. I don't think the particular movement that grew around that advocacy in the latter half of the 20th century is still useful, and I say that it was flawed from the first, even as those flaws were mitigated in the short term by what it accomplished.

It's important to maintain that distinction, and I would strongly prefer that this basic concept wasn't referred to as 'feminism'. Dictionaries describe usage rather than determining reality, and in this case as in so many others I think the majority have got it horribly wrong.

edit: Something of an academic and unnecessary addendum, but I've heard Hitchens say that a few times and I always winced when he did. It's a little trite. The kind of cure he's talking about, birth control, could just as easily be effected by forcibly sterilising women after their first or second child. What he might have said, somewhat less snappily, was, "The empowerment of women, an excellent goal in itself, also handily has the effect of countering explosive population growth and adding more skilled workers to the economy."

Economic refugee? You mean poor people? I believe a nation has a right to decide who gets to enter and who doesn't, they have no obligation to let people in. Simply because there is suffering elsewhere in the world doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of people get to enter and change the makeup of a country. By all means, feed and house them, but to invite them in without a vote of the people who will bear the burden is undemocratic.

How many of those people do you think would like to remain in Europe permanently? Who would want to go back to a 3rd world country even if there is no war? I think these countries should give refugees an 18-month pass and then require them to leave. They don't seem to want to adopt the culture of these generous countries, but transplant their own. The guy in the video who mentioned the birthrate is right, in 50 years europe may be barely recognizable.

I actually found the crazy eye makeup and contacts more off putting than the whole 'bobble torso' thing, but I definitely think she's gone past the point where more surgery makes her look better a long way back.

It could also be my monitor causing the subtleties to stand out, but If you kind of step back and look at him, he's quite yellow in some areas, quite red in others, and you can see brush strokes between some of the layers of makeup.

He needs a new makeup person.