Sports Illustrated puts 2nd tranny on one of 4 covers of its swimsuit issue

"Sports Illustrated" was founded 69 years ago.  It started out being about, you know...sports.  And almost entirely mens' sports.  And once a year for the past 59 years it's had a famous "swimsuit issue."

For young Americans who, given the wokie culture that controls everything today, aren't sure what that involved, it featured females in swimsuits, catering to the mag's almost-entirely-male readership.

But like all New York-based publications, SI has been gradually taken over by wokie Leftists.  If there was any doubt about that it was dispelled two years ago when the editors put a tranny on the cover of the swimsuit edition.

Needless to say, the Left and the elites absolutely *swooned* over this faaabulous display of wokiness.  I'd note some of the scathing comments by male readers, but who cares what they think, right?

In any case, last year the cover was back to a "real" woman.  Had the editors of SI gotten the message?

Hahahahahahaha!  You're kidding, right? They hadn't:  this year there are *four* covers, and one is of a tranny named Kim Petras.  But possibly to dilute criticism the other three covers were of real women.

SI's editors weren't satisfied with just having a tranny on the cover, so they accompanied the issue with an interview with Petras, who said “It’s definitely a scary time to be transgender in America."

One imagines Petras is referring to the slew of laws being passed by sane states to bar tranny-pushers from mutilating children under 18--something the NY Post describes as "anti-LGBTQ legislation."

Would this same Post writer describe limiting voting to age 18 and up as "anti-child legislation"?  Same logic, but everyone would instantly see that as an absurd description, right?  But when it comes to pushing transgenderism, all the "old norms" are trashed.

As with the first tranny on the cover, this choice sparked outrage from--not "men, says the NY Post, but..."conservatives."  Apparently all liberal men loved the cover choice. Some comments:

“Petras is not there because she's popular with SI readers, but because the mag's editors despise their readers, just as Bud Light execs despise the vast majority of their customers."

“This is pure class contempt.  It's as if the editors were laughing ‘Ha ha, our readers are as dumb as the morons who drink Bud Light!'  We can insult them and they'll still subscribe!  Cuz they're stupid.”

"This is a celebration of something very dark and destructive.”

But predictably, the pro-tranny mafia bleated that all the critics just hated trannies--since the Left knows good people cower when accused of hate.

“I don’t see what hurts you about trans people. It doesn’t affect you. The amount of trans hate in this thread is unreal.”

Try this, asshole:  If there was a mag entirely devoted to trannies, does anyone think normal guys would go there and complain?  Highly doubtful.  But when "wokie" leftist editors push trannies on men who've made SI a success for decades, you can hardly complain that normies push back.  That's not hate, that's "What the hell are you doing here?"

Here's a favorite: “I'm tired of men getting to decide what defines female beauty.”  

That could have been a good observation, except for the obvious fact that Petras isn't female, but a male pretending to be female--an insanity eagerly endorsed by the Leftist editors and all the Mainstream Media--including the NY Post, which used false and confusing female pronouns throughout.

Petras made history earlier in the year at the 65th annual Grammy Awards, winning Best Pop Duo Performance with Sam Smith for their dance titled “Unholy”--which was absolutely on-the-nose.

In lots of cases it's "Get woke, go broke."  But SI has been so much like GQ or Vogue for a couple of decades that by now it could totally stop having any sports news at all and barely notice a change in the number of copies sold.

(For the record, I've never read the mag, including the faaabulous swimsuit issues.)