JessPop

Biological women (or ppl who identify with their birth sex/gender in general) should not have to knowingly or willingly share their bodies with the bisexual/gay dating pool in order to not be seen as transphobic. Nene wanting a straight man who does not deal with anything other than biological women with vaginas is her prerogative. Nene's not gay, she's an ally and that's fine. The entitlement the gay community has (at times) with the immediate dismissal or labeling of any small pushback or person genuinely living and expressing their opposing truth as "transphobic" or bigoted is why the community at large is seen as tiresome now and gets accused of "pushing an agenda" or called the "gay mafia". It's delusional and disrespectful for any group to demand rights for themselves while trying to encroach on others'.

For me (and probably for most ppl) when you’re asked the baseline question of “should kids transition?” I think the most common answer is “no” and when ppl hear the word ‘children’ most think of anyone specifically under the age of 18. So when I said 7-8 it’s implied anything else under the age 18 falls under the umbrella of ‘child’ teen or not. I know that you mentioned how it isn’t unilaterally true that kids can’t give informed consent but again we’re not talking about custody disputes where a child is given the opportunity to name which parent they’d rather live with or how 16-17 yr olds (in some states) are considered able to give consent when it comes to sexual autonomy/having intimate contact with someone also their age or older. We’re talking about kids making the decision to alter their bodies in life changing ways when it’s a widely accepted medical fact that the human brain doesn’t even fully develop until the age of 25 but yet we’re expected to accept and entertain the idea of temperamental and hormonal children being mentally capable of genuinely deciding that they were born in the wrong body to the point of condoning medical malpractice to assuage their dysphoria? That’s a big leap for anyone to make. The age of informed marital consent is 14 in Massachusetts and New Hampshire so does that make it right and kids should start getting married to whomever tomorrow or can we agree that being married that young is disgusting and the law in those states should be amended? I understand what the medical guidelines for affirmative care state and in an ideal world of course all doctors would staunchly adhere to those standards of practice but we don’t live in an ideal world and it’s problematic that a family allegedly could doctor-shop until they find one that agrees with whatever they want to do. I do think 99.9% of doctors want the best for their patients and try as much as humanly possible to do no harm as their oath states. However; if one child is confused and ends up being a victim of medical malpractice as a result of that then it’s one too many. That’s why I believe we should have a federal law(s) in place that takes legal discretion away from doctors in this area and makes waiting to medically transition mandatory until at least the age of 18 with exemptions made in rare and or life threatening circumstances. The automatic open hostility from the community at large directed towards those with legitimate questions/feedback and don’t immediately fall in line and agree to the party-line regarding aspects of what should and shouldn’t be classified as trans-rights feeds right-wing propaganda more than some ppl in here care to admit.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11873443/California-teen-sues-doctors-breast-removal-surgery-13-Kaiser-Permanentes-2nd-lawsuit.html So as I was saying: these things obviously do happen and as you stated earlier; children of any age cannot give informed consent. So I don’t see why you have an issue with my statement.

I don’t see the harm in her opinion and I agree with her as far as believing children shouldn’t be legally allowed to medically transition. Stating common sense is not transphobic. Kids with trans ideations can be affirmed through addressing them by their chosen name and clothing, etc. there’s no need for a 7-8 year old to be on hormone therapy.

I actually have tons of respect for Tina’s music, legacy in black culture, and moreover what she continues to represent in general in terms of reinvention, survival and thriving despite immense abuse and initial prejudice. However; your lack of critical thinking ability and blind worship of a woman who doesn’t even know you exist lets me know that you aren’t worth further reply.

Tina most definitely did care and ultimately ended up renouncing her US citizenship over the mockery of other cruel black ppl like Jay and Beyonce who simultaneously monetized her abuse while also using it as a punchline. Without Tina Turner’s blueprint for her to actively steal from there wouldn’t even be a Beyonce to speak of and yet the lack of respect she and her husband continue to show for an iconic black trailblazer they claim to admire is appalling.

Basically and it’s sad to see. Chloe would do well outside of Parkwood without an act that views her as competition managing her career.

That paragraph reinforces my point in reference to what you wrote. If the album remained in theoretical purgatory until Parkwood actually did their job how would that have been a bad thing? It would’ve allowed Chlöe further time to develop, saved her from the public embarrassment of a #119 debut and spared Beyonce from the bad press of speculation and seeming nonchalant. I don’t understand how I’m supposedly flip flopping but you’re literally calling her an aimless flop/money pit that somehow still deserves to put an album out despite the fact that (according to you) she’s bringing Parkwood nothing but deficit. It was an incomplete thought (which you should be familiar with considering you just literally lied and inserted words into Chloe’s mouth to try and prove a point). I’m fine with ending it here because you’re clearly committed to overlooking everything I’ve said in service of living in delusions and placing blame at everyone’s feet but her label boss. Peace.

This entire bit also makes no sense. So you’re telling me unironically that you truly believe the responsibility of promoting Beyoncé's new artist’s album was supposed to rest on Amazon, Universal and Chris Brown (of all people) and not the full service entertainment company she’s signed with that just so happens to be owned by a world renown icon, business mogul and blockbuster touring act y’all insist has the Midas touch in music today? Once again you’re not being serious. and if her album ended up remaining in limbo so what? It would’ve avoided the conversation we’re currently having entirely and saved Beyonce the bad press of everyone wondering why she’s completely fine with letting a musician she has a major financial stake in underperform. I’m struggling to see the downside for Beyoncé.

You are so condescending to not even know what you’re talking about it’s ridiculous. If Chloe called it a coincidence in the clip (which btw she did not in the Twitter clips I linked) then call her up and tell her how you feel because I never used that term personally and I’m who you’re addressing. The fact is Parkwood is a full service label: meaning that they house and are responsible for developing all aspects of her career. Nobody signs to a major label or another well-known act only to have none of the singles besides their first sent to radio and have said act publicly pretend they don’t exist after the contract is signed. No singer would willingly go along with having their debut record (or any album for that matter) released with no clear promotional strategy for the release month/week and instead have to resort to having their new music mentioned as a footnote in service of promoting a completely unrelated project funded by a film studio. I referred to her press-tour as a footnote/afterthought because the reason you saw her doing those 10 different interviews was because of Universal and the film she was contractually obligated to promote, it had nothing to do with music. That came from her mouth in the clip and is the basis for discussion in this thread. Her press as a fact did not come because her label cared enough to do anything to promote it. Beyoncé failed this girl with her album/overall artist development and instead of admitting that and moving on you’d rather sit talking in irrelevant ass circles that don’t touch on the subject at hand. If you can’t comprehend the point of the thread that’s fine but talking to you is pointless because you’re being intellectually dishonest at best and plain stupid at worst.

Exactly. I’m glad there’s people with common sense in here.

Who said it was a coincidence, boo? You are another one that’s talking just to have something insulting and contrarian to say. If, as you claim, Chloe is just this rudderless/aimless flop that’s losing Parkwood all of this money then what was the point of putting the album out in the first place? It was just randomly announced in February when no one was begging for nor expecting it. By the way things ultimately turned out we can see the label had no real strategy going into the release. Chloe Bailey is a new artist who you’ve already admitted needs time and development so clearly her name alone wasn’t going to sell the album without heavy promotion and or a co-sign from her boss (Beyoncé). Beyoncé’s company is her label/management which means artist development, A&R and promotion all rests with Parkwood. If Chloe isn’t succeeding or viewed favorably then it’s their fault. If her sound isn’t connecting or being properly promoted then that’s Beyoncé and her label’s fault. Who has ever heard of someone being signed to what’s essentially a full-service entertainment company but can’t even get a proper promo run to discuss said debut album? Be serious.

You’re literally avoiding the topic which is that Chloe herself said the promo for this album came as a byproduct of doing press for a film by Universal and not the record label/management company she’s signed to. That’s a broad conversation that encompasses all of the bad decisions made by Beyoncé/Parkwood thus far. Once again it’s coming across as ignorance and unwillingness to engage with the conversation.

And to be clear directly from Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkwood_Entertainment Granted: we don’t know the full extent of Columbia’s involvement with Chloe’s project outside of distribution but the fact remains that she is signed to directly to Beyoncé (who is the CEO of the label) so stop with the narrative that Parkwood is just a management company and that the buck doesn’t ultimately stop with Bey. if Beyoncé wanted Chloe’s other singles sent to radio they would’ve been. Her entire career narrative is that she’s this business woman in control of every aspect of her career but when it comes to Chloe suddenly she’s back to being a label puppet who’s hands are tied unless Columbia or some other unknown entity gives her approval or a budget to promote an artist she went out and signed independently. You can’t have it both ways.

You’re literally talking around my point and being obtuse for the sake of it. If the album was “destined to flop” as you claim that’s still Parkwood and by association Beyoncé’s fault (as Parkwood is her company and Chloe is her artist). I’m not seeing what’s not clicking for you other than you seem to want to divorce Beyoncé’s involvement from inconvenient truths. Had the album been a success you and everyone else would’ve been breaking your ankles running to make threads about Beyoncé and her team being excellent business people but since that’s not the case suddenly Chloe is solely responsible for her failures when that’s not the way it works.