Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Openly transgender conservative pol Donna Milo - wait till you hear her views on equality
by: Pam Spaulding
Sat May 22, 2010 at 00:26:18 AM EDT

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16209/openly-transgender-conservative-pol-donna-milo-wait-till-you-hear-her-views-on-equality (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16209/openly-transgender-conservative-pol-donna-milo-wait-till-you-hear-her-views-on-equality)

I'm having a difficult time grasping the positions of Donna Milo, who  seeks to serve Florida's 20th U.S. Congressional district, a seat currently held by Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Milo, who is openly transgender, is also conservative, perhaps shockingly so to many. Mike Signorile interviewed Milo today:

    While she confirmed to me that she is in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("of course"), it turns she is opposed to marriage equality, giving the religious line on marriage being between "a man and a woman." On the issue of adoption Milo also believes that, though kids should go to gay and lesbian parents if it means they'll be in an institution, "traditional families" should have priority over gays. She also believes the government should not have a role in funding gender reassignment surgery for transgender people.

I think my disconnect here is the lack of political empathy.

It is also a bit out of place to, on one hand, say one does not care about labels, and then

(1) discriminate on the basis of labels (notably endorsing different sets of rights for mixed-sex and same-sex couples).

(2) campaign on being an American.

#2 isn't particularly serious, since people are often under the gun to provide sound bites, and it is a lesser of evils when it comes to labels.  #1, though, is significantly harder to accept -- but it is still less egregious than the usual rhetoric of most Republicans saying they want "small government" and then trying to institute a strong "religious" code of morality (while she has done a "lite" version of the latter, I have not otherwise listened/read enough to see if she has tried to pass off the former).

Since there is almost no way she can win - the nomination, not to mention the general election, then I'll stick by my statement that her campaign is just the trivial foibles of the entitled affluent class who have the luxury of indulging in such pursuits.  Matter of fact, that's pretty much the entire Republican party anymore.

And, isn't it pretty much taken for granted that since it's a requirement to be a citizen in the first place, and since she is running against people who were born here, who exactly is not 'an American' in this deal.

Regarding everyone having to be a citizen, I think that may be the justification.  If she is encouraged to provide a label (typically towards differentiating people), then there is a certain poetic quality in using a a label that everyone shares (potentially in order to unify people).  Whether she is accomplishing this depends on tone and such.  If she says it in a way that is supposed to insinuate her opponent(s) is/are not Americans or "true" Americans, then that's hypocrisy.  If it is designed to try to authenticate herself (which can ironically have the opposite effect at times), then that's not necessary especially bad.  You would know better than I would how she's trying to use it, though.