It used to be Dassler Brothers Shoe Factory, but it changed its name to Adidas and now, over the years, it has grown to be the second-largest maker of sports shoes and sportswear in the world.
And now it’s unleashed a new ad campaign that, among other things, promotes men competing in women’s sports.
Commentator Todd Starnes noted an ad in a new campaign, structured around the idea that nothing is impossible, features Brazilian volleyball player Tiffany Abreu among other athletes.
He’s a biological male competing on the women’s team there, leaving the company “pushing for biological males to crush women on the court,” Starnes explained.
Adidas’ ad claims, “Not only is she an unstoppable athlete, but she also uses her voice to encourage others to embrace their own identities.”
But Abreu competed as a man for Brazil, and in other championships in the leagues of Indonesia, Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
But he now explained, in Portuguese in the ad, “I play for Brazil and for all trans women. So when you cheer my name, we all win — on and off the court.”
This is Tiffany Abreu, a male transgender volleyball player. Tiffany now has to have T levels below 10nM to compete but, prior to transition, spent approx. *5000 DAYS* with male T levels (range is 11 – 41nM). This, apparently, does not count as unfair advantage pic.twitter.com/eCrS73wOcY
— Ben (@BenWlv) March 4, 2019
The Washington Times said, “Accompanying the clip on Adidas’ official YouTube channel is an English description lauding Abreu for pushing identity politics.”
However, if social media is to be believed, the ad likely was costing the company, with dozens of people expressing online their plan to simply ignore the company when they make future purchase.
“I feel a sudden urge to sell every adidas product I own,” wrote Sandra M.
Todd Jackson said, “My buying anything Adidas ever again is now ‘IMPOSSIBLE’!
And R. James said, “I’m 39 years old, and I have never boycotted a company until today.”
The ad, which has been available online long enough for it to accumulate 27 million plus views, strangely had only 711 “likes,” a key social media measurement.
Nike, the one company in its product line bigger than Adidas, previously has advocated for the transgender agenda, reported the Family Research Council.
That organization reported, back in 2020 when the issue arose, that, “When the retail giant isn’t pumping out shoes stitched together by China’s Uyghur slaves, they’re back in America arguing that we should let kids ruin their lives because it might be good for business. If there’s one thing this brand must not care about, it’s appearances.
“The last three months have been pretty revealing for the Nike crowd. As if the anti-American, phony social justice warrior act wasn’t enough, they started tackling other hugely unpopular agendas: fighting adoption, girls’ sports, and now parents’ rights and kids’ health. After turning a blind eye to the atrocities in China, which they are directly or indirectly facilitating, now the company seems intent on ignoring the dangers of hurting children. In Alabama, one of the states trying to stop children from rushing into transgender surgery and hormones, Nike is leading the corporate march to put the scalpel back in doctors’ hands,” the organization revealed.
“They don’t care that there’s no scientific evidence proving these treatments are safe. They don’t care that 98 percent of boys and 88 percent of girls grow out of it. Or that it’s been called ‘child abuse’ by the American College of Pediatricians. They don’t even care that hundreds of teenagers who’ve transitioned are pleading with adults to stop others from making the mistake. What do they care about? Nothing — except the approval of LGBT activists.
“Amazingly, Nike and 39 other companies are willing to stake their public image on a bill that doesn’t outlaw transgender treatment — it just asks that minors wait to have it. If we tell kids they can’t get a tattoo until they’re 18 or drink until they’re 21, what’s the problem with asking them to postpone the mutilation of their bodies until they’re mature enough to make that decision? These brands disagree. They think we should lock children into these decisions and force them to live with the scars long after the confusion wears off. Which — as so much of the research points out — it does. What then?”
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
