Caitlyn Jenner's politics spark debate in transgender ranks
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRANSGENDER_POLITICS_CAOL-?SITE=CAANG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Hosted/By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer 03/11/2016
"NEW YORK (AP) -- Since coming out a year ago, Caitlyn Jenner has not always been a unifying force in the transgender community. Her latest political remarks - underscoring her conservative outlook and praising Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz - ignited a storm of criticism from supporters of transgender rights, who view most conservative Republicans as adversaries."
I have an unusual take on this.
I don't think the problem is Ms. Jenner's politics. I strongly disagree with them, but she's a citizen and is permitted/obligated to make up her own mind.
I think the problem is that the rest of us care so much about what one transwoman thinks.
As an outsider I find it curious that republicans manage to market themselves as the hands off option for government where people manage their own issues, whilst being the main driver behind limitations on civil liberties, restrictions on gay rights and regulations on who can pee in which bathroom. It definitely seems like the opposite is true.
The ironic thing about this is that she said she won't support the Democrats because Hillary is a liar. While I think there is substance to that charge I don't understand how throwing your support to another who has serious integrity issues of his own is a legitimate decision.
If she was really concerned about honesty she would see that the sole candidate right now that appears to possess that attribute is Bernie Sanders. Her lack of support for him tells me then that honesty really isn't at the root of her position. It's just an excuse.
From my own perspective, viewing conservative republicans as adversaries seems like a pretty logical conclusion. When a group says they want to kill you it's not a bad idea to take them at their word.
Sapere Aude
Quote from: Deborah on March 12, 2016, 05:48:47 AM
From my own perspective, viewing conservative republicans as adversaries seems like a pretty logical conclusion. When a group says they want to kill you it's not a bad idea to take them at their word.
This, absolutely! If the only other party was absolutely abhorrent to me this argument would sway me. Luckily I agree enough with the Democrats and their track record that I don't have to make that Devil's Bargain.
And no, before this election cycle I was not a Democrat. I was a small "l" libertarian and an independent. I started to doubt the Republicans when McCain picked Palin for a running mate.
Quote from: suzifrommd on March 12, 2016, 05:12:30 AM
I think the problem is that the rest of us care so much about what one transwoman thinks.
I'm not sure how many of us really care about what she thinks. Celebrities are famous for being famous, not necessarily because of the value of their insight.
Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on March 12, 2016, 05:46:44 AM
I find it curious that republicans manage to market themselves as the hands off option for government where people manage their own issues, whilst being the main driver behind limitations on civil liberties, restrictions on gay rights and regulations on who can pee in which bathroom. It definitely seems like the opposite is true.
I believe that this is an indication of the somewhat uneasy coalition that was formed between the small-government libertarians and the fundamentalist Christians, initially by Nixon and then built further by Reagan. The most recent manifestation of this is the Trump phenomenon, where the leadership of the Republican Party had found itself significantly off-target with their base and unable to influence the selection of a presidential candidate. I wonder whether the "small 'l' libertarians" in the party wouldn't align better with the moderate Democrats (e.g. Hillary Clinton) if we all weren't so invested in maintaining a two-party system. We may yet see some transformation in the Republican party, especially if they end up losing in November.
Quote from: suzifrommd on March 12, 2016, 05:12:30 AM
I think the problem is that the rest of us care so much about what one transwoman thinks.
It makes me wonder who is deciding to report Caitlin's opinions in the first place. Note the way Al Sharpton is often quoted or depicted on the news to speak for issues affecting the black community, despite his not holding any office or position, elected or not. He is derided by many in white America, and some think he is granted his platform to speak simply BECAUSE he a divisive figure in that sense. Perhaps Caitlin's "sponsorship" by the media is influenced by the fact that she will NOT promote the best interests of the transgender community. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but something to think about anyway.
Quote from: Dayta on March 12, 2016, 06:40:19 AM
Perhaps Caitlin's "sponsorship" by the media is influenced by the fact that she will NOT promote the best interests of the transgender community. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but something to think about anyway.
Caitlyn is promoting her own interests. If they are at odds with what would be best for society is not her concern, its about her bottom line.
I don't especially care what she thinks, personally... but I do wish she'd stop saying things like she's a "transgender ambassador" and a spokesperson for the trans community. Basically, she's entitled to her own opinions, but I admit it does annoy me when she presents herself as speaking FOR me. (Because I admit I do tend to disagree!)
Caitlyn Jenner is worth somewhere around one hundred million dollars and lives in a mansion on top of a hill. Of course she's going to be a Republican, it's in her own self interest and, let's admit it, almost all of us act in our own self interest. Of course she has no concept of what it's like to be a homeless trans person who has to resort to sex work to live. Or a trans person who is working but scrimping to save pennies toward surgeries. But she does have the right to choose her political party, to support whoever she wants and say she supports them. Yes, it sets my teeth on edge when I hear her say the stupid things she's said but, as before, she has a right to say them. I hope Jenny, Kate, Candis, et. al. can talk some sense into her but I doubt it.
"I don't agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Quote from: BeverlyAnn on March 12, 2016, 11:16:12 AM
Of course she's going to be a Republican, it's in her own self interest
I hear her talking a lot about how great friends she is with Ted Cruz, but I haven't heard Ted reciprocating. In fact, I suspect that should she ever come up in an interview with Ted, she'd not get the same treatment. Not that I'm wishing it on her, I do wish her the best. But she's certainly very lucky not to have to face many of the challenges that many others do.
That's the problem as I see it. It's not that she's misguided nor is it that she doesn't have the right to support whoever she chooses. It's that she simply appears to be completely oblivious to life in the real world.
Even if Ted Cruz were her good friend he would never admit it. His supporters wouldn't stand for it.
Sapere Aude
Not sure about her and the details of her political affinities, but it's a problem that a person might support certain views or courses of action typically thought of as conservative or republican but the only way to support that would be to support the republican parties and candidates and then be lumped with them. Either that or run for President yourself and good luck with that. I suppose Jenner has enough money she could actually attempt that, lol.
I mean I don't not support a welfare state for example but I can see that the whole reason all of our countries are in unsustainable debt is because of the cost of the welfare state. Something has to be done about that, but how can anything be done without supporting the people who actually want to do something about it, i.e. the conservatives or republicans? The finer details of political problems and how to solve them get lost in this political tribalism. I'm not a conservative myself but I do appreciate some of the preservatory measures some of them want implemented and I've come to appreciate how "big government" isn't so great for everyone. I have friends and family who think public money is endless, don't care where it comes from or for how long. It's that kinda attitude that's gonna bring us all a lot of pain.
Now I don't even call myself a conservative but I know what countries really need to reduce the bloatedness of the state and the debt and get back to running countries that can actually pay their bills, and conservatives typically have an outlook closer in line with this view than socialist parties. This isn't going to turn me into a conservative but it is a problem - how the hell can I vote for what I want, for what's best for my country since all the choice there is is one extreme or another - people who want to spend even more money we don't have to woo voters, or people who don't give a crap about the poor. If I actually wanted to FIX any of that problem, I'd probably be lumped in with the conservatives, and then be criticized for that because they're the kinda people who'd want my sort denied surgery or recognition.
It's a mess.
I think the problem for me is that she represents me in the public eye whether I want her to or not. Anything a celebrity like her does reflects on me because of the state of this country, and she is making me look bad to anyone who doesn't know me yet. Normally I wouldn't care what she did. Unfortunately all eyes are on her instead of the number of other transgender celebrities who do represent me better, like Laverne Cox.
Quote from: BeverlyAnnI hope Jenny, Kate, Candis, et. al. can talk some sense into her but I doubt it.
And so do they. Jenny Boylan has a
recent blog entry on this subject that's worth reading. Her major point is that if the best we can do is to learn to listen to each other, that could go a long way.
I'd add that bringing compassion to such conversations would also go a long way. I watched S2E1 of IAC, and what I saw in Ms. Jenner was terror, intense fear of having her worldview challenged. There's no doubt that she's rich, shallow, and clueless, but she's gone through some very big changes in a short time. It doesn't surprise me that she'd cling to what she thinks she knows, and I do feel some compassion for her in that regard.
That said, I also wish she'd bloody well shut up and listen.
It's a long way from Reality TV to reality. That's all I can say about her.
Quote from: Jenna Marie on March 12, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
I don't especially care what she thinks, personally... but I do wish she'd stop saying things like she's a "transgender ambassador" and a spokesperson for the trans community. Basically, she's entitled to her own opinions, but I admit it does annoy me when she presents herself as speaking FOR me. (Because I admit I do tend to disagree!)
Can you show us where you think you found that information? Because Caitlyn has specifically said she
isn't a spokesperson for the transgender community: http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/caitlyn-jenner-i-am-cait-season-2-politics-republican-1201680517/
While you have a right to choose who represents you, you have no right to misrepresent others.
Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 12, 2016, 05:38:03 PM
Can you show us where you think you found that information? Because Caitlyn has specifically said she isn't a spokesperson for the transgender community: http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/caitlyn-jenner-i-am-cait-season-2-politics-republican-1201680517/
While you have a right to choose who represents you, you have no right to misrepresent others.
Hugs, Devlyn
It really is tough to see where she stands on that. While she has allowed herself to be the most visible trans person in the media, she also said that she is not a spokesperson for the transgender community after plenty of backlash. However, she also called herself the "trans ambassador" to presidential candidate Ted Cruz. That is where I personally draw a line in the sand and say "you do not represent me to anyone."
I personally just wish she'd stick to what she said before about focusing on her own journey. I am at least happy that she has faced that challenge because I know the difficulties as well, but I do not appreciate her involvement in politics as an "ambassador".
Devlyn, it appears to be a matter of interpretation. I do not intend to misrepresent her, but I don't feel that my own interpretation is unsupported.
I actually do appreciate that she explicitly disclaimed such a role in the link you provided, which I had not seen before. On the other hand, this is her referring to herself as a "trans ambassador" in precisely those words : http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/mar/05/caitlyn-jenner-ted-cruz-trans-ambassador [this quote is also in the article linked here, but it's buried.] The quote which I attributed to her directly, in other words, is in fact widely documented as having actually come from her verbatim.
And it's hard for me, at least, to interpret a desire to be an ambassador to a presidential candidate, followed by an equally explicit discussion of trans issues that affect people beyond herself, as anything other than stating that she is - at least in this context - a spokesperson.
(Before the article that you posted, and back when I was paying more attention to her, she also did at least strongly imply that she was *one* spokesperson for the community : http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/27/i-am-cait-supertease-caitlyn-jenner That's the official site for her show, btw. It appears that she may have learned better since then, and that I do appreciate.)
I just speculating because I don't know Cait personally. She's had a gifted life since she was 20 at least . For one she won the Gold and she kept going . hiding the same secret we all do. I use to have such nightmares of someone finding me out and to be in the public the way she was all these years , wow ,what a horrendous nightmare it would of been for me to have to face my truth in the public eye . Cait obviously doesn't come close to representing my life , she is a trans the same as me and has gone through the same turmoil I presume since a child and in that way we are sisters. As far as I'm concerned she has every right to be who she is. My father was a Republican and his ancestry is from England the birthplace of Calvinism. I never agreed with my fathers view as a Republican but my love never changed. To me Cait is someone I respect even though I think some of her views are off and she hopefully will learn that there are a lot of trans that aren't any way near as lucky as she is.
I must be the only one looking at the Ted Cruz thing as satire? A challenge to Cruz to stop the discriminatory rhetoric? I mean, she mentioned a position that is entirely fictional.
Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: suzifrommd on March 12, 2016, 05:12:30 AM
I have an unusual take on this.
I don't think the problem is Ms. Jenner's politics. I strongly disagree with them, but she's a citizen and is permitted/obligated to make up her own mind.
I think the problem is that the rest of us care so much about what one transwoman thinks.
As usual I pretty much agree with this.
I won't say I strongly disagree since I'm not really sure what her views are, but from the little I've read I think I'd disagree. But so what, she's welcome to disagree with me if she cares to.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 12, 2016, 06:15:17 PM
I must be the only one looking at the Ted Cruz thing as satire? A challenge to Cruz to stop the discriminatory rhetoric? I mean, she mentioned a position that is entirely fictional.
Hugs, Devlyn
I highly doubt this since she flat-out said she likes Ted Cruz and she is firmly Republican. She may disagree with his religious ideals, but she supports him politically. She's also just not known to make satirical claims. It's a bit of a stretch to say that it was satire at all since there's nothing to support that idea.
Again, she can support anyone she wants, but she's going far beyond that by claiming to be an "ambassador".
Devlyn, I suppose it's possible. I agree with Eevee that she is a conservative Republican who supports Cruz and has not previously been prone to satire, but nobody but her knows what's in her head.
I stand by my statement that I wish she hadn't said that, though. :) Even if it IS satire, I wish she hadn't, because it's clearly muddying the waters.
I believe she is just poking him. Just my opinion.
Hugs, Devlyn
I think part of the solution to all this craziness is for all the Munchkins to come out of hiding like after Dorothy came out of her house after killing the witch. Make your voice count and don't let others speak for you without affirming their authority to speak for you.
How Caitlyn Jenner Went From Icon to Outcast
http://www.thewrap.com/how-caitlyn-jenner-went-from-icon-to-outcast/
The Wrap/TV | By Itay Hod on March 11, 2016 @ 2:42 pm
""Someone needs to tell Ms. Jenner she's transgender," activist Zoey Tur tells TheWrap"
Quote from: T.K.G.W. on March 12, 2016, 12:41:53 PM
...I can see that the whole reason all of our countries are in unsustainable debt is because of the cost of the welfare state.
Actually the cost of your so-called welfare state is significantly less than the cost of handouts, in the form of tax breaks to individuals and corporations who don't need them. And let's not forget Military procurement for weapon systems that are unnecessary since the Cold War ended 27 years ago. By being Republican, Caitlin Jenner supports sending your tax dollars to those who are gorging themselves at the public trough.
Quote from: T.K.G.W. on March 12, 2016, 12:41:53 PM
I've come to appreciate how "big government" isn't so great for everyone.
Big government? Essential services are now controlled by price-gouging corporations. There are regulatory agencies for industries that really do need to be regulated, but congress won't fund them. And what about public infrastructure projects that congress won't fund—employment would increase, which would lead to a stronger economy and a more secure country? By being Republican, Caitlin Jenner supports price gouging for essential services, deregulation of industries whose by-products are a major cause of climate change, and denies repair/rebuilding of crumbling roads and bridges and the power grid.
Caitlin should stick to her fun little bus trip with people who should know better than to participate.
Quote from: diane 2606Quote from: T.K.G.W....I can see that the whole reason all of our countries are in unsustainable debt is because of the cost of the welfare state.
Actually the cost of your so-called welfare state is significantly less than the cost of handouts, in the form of tax breaks to individuals and corporations who don't need them. And let's not forget Military procurement for weapon systems that are unnecessary since the Cold War ended 27 years ago. By being Republican, Caitlin Jenner supports sending your tax dollars to those who are gorging themselves at the public trough.
Just so. In fact, if you look at total national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), it's far higher in the US than in countries we think of as "welfare states." To use just a few examples, the Scandinavian countries, which are usually touted as among the most "socialist," have much less national debt than the US:
Total government debt as % of GDP, 2014
Norway 30%
Sweden 41%
Denmark 45%
Finland 57%
US 106%
So it seems that it's not those pesky social programs that are causing the problem. (That's if one accepts that it IS a problem; many reputable economists argue that it's not.)
In the US, there are two main contributing factors: absurdly bloated military spending (this currently accounts for about 57% of the US' discretionary spending), and the endless tax cuts bestowed on corporations and on the rich since Ronald Reagan became President.
So, yes, Ms. Jenner would do well to move her head out to somewhere better lit and try to learn about the real world, instead of spouting clichés she's picked up from Fox News and her capitalist friends.
I need to object to one point above and that is the one on military spending. Yes, there is waste but that waste is not the primary driver. Three other things are.
The first is the demand by particularly politicians, but also the American public, that we intervene everywhere in the world for nearly any reason. Maintaining a force that can do this is expensive mainly because we live an ocean away from everyone else and have to have systems that can be moved quickly and in large numbers. It also requires a force large enough to do the task and then to sustain the task.
The second, and this is a big one, is the American aversion to American Soldiers being killed. So we spend a lot of money on developing systems with which they can fight and not die. This includes continually improving weapons systems to maintain overmatch, continually improving vehicle and personal protection systems to protect against changing threats, and training a lot.
The third is the American insistence on an all volunteer military and no draft. That too costs a lot of money in pay and benefits. Soldiers are patriotic and do like what their doing. But those two things will not maintain an all volunteer military when people still have pay to eat and take care of their families. Attracting and retaining good people in sufficient numbers costs a lot of money. Of course being a large nation we could get sufficient numbers cheaply with a draft but long term quality would decline and the American people would object very strongly.
The only way to make a significant reduction in military spending is to make a significant change to our foreign policy and maintain a much smaller and differently composed force that stays close to home. Changing foreign policy is not the purview of anyone at all in the military. That responsibility belongs to the people themselves and those they elect.
Or we can get used to just sending Soldiers all over the place with inferior equipment and training so they start dying in large numbers again like they did in earlier wars.
Blast away on my statements if you want but I do this for a living and do have some idea of what I'm talking about. Plus the ones that have to die or get maimed I work with and see every day. So I do feel very strongly on the subject.
Sapere Aude
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 12, 2016, 05:38:03 PM
Can you show us where you think you found that information? Because Caitlyn has specifically said she isn't a spokesperson for the transgender community: http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/caitlyn-jenner-i-am-cait-season-2-politics-republican-1201680517/
While you have a right to choose who represents you, you have no right to misrepresent others.
Hugs, Devlyn
Well, how about here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caitlyn-jenner-ted-cruz-trans-ambassador/
"In fact, Jenner said she'd like to play a role in Cruz's administration should he get elected. "Wouldn't it be great -- let's say he goes on to be president, and I have all my girls on a trans issues board to advise him on making decisions when it comes to trans issues. Isn't that a good idea?" Jenner said. "Trans ambassador to the president of the United States, so we can say, 'Ted, love what you're doing but here's what's going on.'"Really, this
is what she thinks. No fooling!
Quote from: stephaniec on March 12, 2016, 03:23:53 AM
Caitlyn Jenner's politics spark debate in transgender ranks
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRANSGENDER_POLITICS_CAOL-?SITE=CAANG&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Hosted/By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer 03/11/2016
"NEW YORK (AP) -- Since coming out a year ago, Caitlyn Jenner has not always been a unifying force in the transgender community. Her latest political remarks - underscoring her conservative outlook and praising Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz - ignited a storm of criticism from supporters of transgender rights, who view most conservative Republicans as adversaries."
A trans person who isn't a liberal democrat. Wow, someone call the cops. Why can't Caitlyn have a mind of her own and make up her own mind and decide for herself. You think there's no such thing as non-liberal LGBT people? How about the log cabin republicans or the pink pistols a group of LGBT gun owners many of whom are staunch libertarians. One of the original founders of pink pistols is a transwoman by the way. My own brother is a married gay man who is 100% behind Donald Trump, both he and his husband. I mean big time. A lot of LGBT people have been having an epiphany about liberal democrats and the support is being chipped away while liberals who at one time were the party of civil rights have now evolved into the party of anti-civil rights.
Quote from: kira21 ♡♡♡ on March 12, 2016, 05:46:44 AM
As an outsider I find it curious that republicans manage to market themselves as the hands off option for government where people manage their own issues, whilst being the main driver behind limitations on civil liberties, restrictions on gay rights and regulations on who can pee in which bathroom. It definitely seems like the opposite is true.
I think that's the issue that republicans are going to have to face & change if they intend to move forward as a party. If they really believe in limited government, then having the government dictate which individual can marry another is definitely big government intrusion on the rights of individuals.
The smartest move the republicans could have made was a push for all marriages to labeled civil unions by the government. That way it would strictly be left to the different branches of Christianity to determine what marriages are sanctified by God, without the government having to decide that.
Deborah, I wouldn't dream of blasting you for that post. I agree 100% with everything you said, and, yes, the answer is that we have to rethink our entire approach to foreign policy.
When I wrote "bloated," I didn't mean "waste." I meant exactly what you just articulated so perfectly: the whole thing is wrongheaded in every possible way.
Actually, bringing back the draft might not be such a bad idea; what we have now is essentially an economic draft, in which the military is the employer of last resort for a lot of young people, especially minority and working class youth. (And how outrageous is it that 25% of military families depend on food pantries and other charities for basic needs, according to this NBC report (http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/hungry-heroes-25-percent-military-families-seek-food-aid-n180236)?)
If we had compulsory military (or other social) service, it would mean that the upper classes, including the political class, would have their kids' skin in the game... perhaps that might make them think twice about perpetual war.
[/thread hijack] (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fredface.gif&hash=9d047737b5f4a6e3b63a2e608fdc5db36eb1b793)
Quote from: Tysilio on March 13, 2016, 05:52:07 PM
Deborah, I wouldn't dream of blasting you for that post.
i didn't take any offense. ;). There would be one consequence if we brought back the draft and that is that quality would decline. It's not that regular citizens would be poor Soldiers but rather that most wouldn't stay in any longer than they had to. With today's complexities it takes a long time to train people to the standards that we have been accustomed to since around the mid 1980s. For that reason alone even the military does not want a draft. Another factor is that the physical fitness of average draft age Americans has reached such an abysmally low level that the vast majority do not today possess the physical attributes to even start basic training. Fixing that with people who have absolutely no fitness is beyond what the military can do in several months of basic training. It's something that in previous times was developed over years of outdoor play and physical education classes in school.
Good point. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fcool.gif&hash=d4879c0267a356dff26cd86b0fa87ea42a6199e1)
the draft is essential in time of all out war. The problem is that it isn't fair. the rich get exemptions or get sweet deals. The congressional sons get to go into the officers ranks. You do end up with the poor fighting in the front lines. Abrahams Lincoln's son was given sweet duty away from the front lines. War is nothing , but hell. If you chose to fight for honor or nation that's great. You don't chose to be in the draft. Honestly there hasn't been a draft because of the Viet Nam insanity. Go ahead congress put a draft into effect without world war 3 and see what happens , We don't need children dying because some moron in congress decides to play with the lives of the innocent . Go ahead sweet government and see exactly what will happen if you implement a draft for foolishness .
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 12, 2016, 06:15:17 PM
I must be the only one looking at the Ted Cruz thing as satire? A challenge to Cruz to stop the discriminatory rhetoric? I mean, she mentioned a position that is entirely fictional.
Hugs, Devlyn
I was a bit confused as well. In terms of moderate to extreme, Cruz is much farther on the extreme side of the conservatism spectrum. Kasich would classify as the most moderate, so I'm not sure why she wouldn't show her support for him.
Hey, I am just waiting for Ted Cruz to ask Caitlyn to waltz or do the tango at some big Republican shindig. Or the way Donald Trump goes through wives she will become Donald's fifth wife, and God forbid, someday First Lady of the United States. I know, I know they will be ice skating in Hell when that happens, but a girl can only dream.
Caitlyn has the right to be who she is. Transitioning doesn't change your politics or even your lifestyle. Think about it when she was butch and Bruce the Stud how she pruned and preened her public image, now Caitlyn the diva is not much different.
The only time in pictures she let herself image was in one picture I saw from the Kardashians when she looked depressed probably because she was not carrying on like one of the other women.
I think that she if running point into the valley of the bigots and we will see if like Sarah Palin she becomes the Vice-Presidential candidate for her favorite Ted Cruz, or not (Ice skating in Hell).
We trans people spend too much of our lives in little boxes of public expectations before we come out and transition. I don't think we should be building little boxes of expectations for other trans people once they go public. Nor should we build a little box of expectations for ourselves.
Just thoughts from an aging trans granny.
Quote from: diane 2606 on March 12, 2016, 11:30:42 PM
Actually the cost of your so-called welfare state is significantly less than the cost of handouts, in the form of tax breaks to individuals and corporations who don't need them. And let's not forget Military procurement for weapon systems that are unnecessary since the Cold War ended 27 years ago. By being Republican, Caitlin Jenner supports sending your tax dollars to those who are gorging themselves at the public trough.
Big government? Essential services are now controlled by price-gouging corporations. There are regulatory agencies for industries that really do need to be regulated, but congress won't fund them. And what about public infrastructure projects that congress won't fund—employment would increase, which would lead to a stronger economy and a more secure country? By being Republican, Caitlin Jenner supports price gouging for essential services, deregulation of industries whose by-products are a major cause of climate change, and denies repair/rebuilding of crumbling roads and bridges and the power grid.
Caitlin should stick to her fun little bus trip with people who should know better than to participate.
That's the frustrating part about the republican party. They claim to be fiscal conservatives, but they spend like a drunken sailor after getting elected. The defense budget doesn't need to be expanded, & if it does the debt they claim to want to lower will skyrocket.
She's really started one debate here! I've seen the whole spectrum of political persuasions more so than the TG version here on this forum group. The TG spectrum lies from binary to somewhere past Pluto! I am not surprised of Caitlyn's position. We got some here that makes my Southern Baptist, Tea Party brother look like Bernie Sanders!
Joelene
As of today we are no longer accepting submissions of posts about Jenner.