• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two things I don't get about Caitlyn Jenner

Let me just start by saying I am empathetic to her plight. Though I have not walked in her shoes, I can understand that she felt awkward in a man's body. That was a huge burden to carry for all of those years and I am happy she had the courage to come out.

What I don't get is the following:

1) She has apparently been attracted to women all her life. Attraction is natural -- something one is born with. So then, now that she is out as a female, why is she considering dating men? This I don't get. Can anyone help me understand something that I am not getting, or do you see this as ****ed up as I do?

2) Why the hell is she being so outspoken as a staunch Republican, a party that does not give one flying **** about her welfare and rights as a transgendered person? Why want a government that does not hold dear matters that are hugely important?

Can only allude to point 2.
Some people aren't single issue voters and have more nuanced beliefs beyond "Us vs Them."
 
But it's abut equal rights.

It's also about HOW and WHY change happens. If the choice is a legally equal union not called marriage or forcing the word marriage to change because...
 
Not sure about number 1.

But number 2 sure does puzzle me, especially that she endorsed Cruz.

Look, being transgender is ONE aspect of her personality, it doesn't define everything she is, so the fact that she's conservative is not a worry for me, nor should it be.

However... It is... Noteworthy.

It is interesting.

It is a worthy point of discussion to ask why someone, from the LGBT community would endorse the MOST anti LGBT candidate left in the race.

I mean, I believe all sorts of things from conservative and liberal leanings and I have to make a difficult choice at times with which party will best represent those beliefs, but if a party came along and had every single belief I hold dear set in stone and would implement them, if a foot note said that

"P.S we will work to take rights away from immigrants originating from Africa" (of which I am one).

I MIGHT GIVE THEM A MISS.

As a gay man I am perplexed at Miss Jenners sexual orientation, my guess is Bruce preferred male company, kinda explains the marriage to Mama Fame Whore. Getting into her bed every night would turn me to the other side. Surprised Jenner made it out of that family with his sanity intact. As for her voting Republican, only explanation is lack of critical thinking.
 
As a gay man I am perplexed at Miss Jenners sexual orientation, my guess is Bruce preferred male company, kinda explains the marriage to Mama Fame Whore. Getting into her bed every night would turn me to the other side. Surprised Jenner made it out of that family with his sanity intact. As for her voting Republican, only explanation is lack of critical thinking.

As a transwoman who also votes Republican I find your comment to be very offensive.
 
2) Why the hell is she being so outspoken as a staunch Republican, a party that does not give one flying **** about her welfare and rights as a transgendered person? Why want a government that does not hold dear matters that are hugely important?

People don't always vote their identity, let alone a specific part of that identity.

American Jews predominantly vote for Democrats even though Democrats are less supportive of Israel than are Republicans. They do so because they think Democrat policies are better domestically and/or possibly because they take issue with some of Israel's actions in response to terrorism or for any other reason unconnected with being Jewish.
 
Let me just start by saying I am empathetic to her plight. Though I have not walked in her shoes, I can understand that she felt awkward in a man's body. That was a huge burden to carry for all of those years and I am happy she had the courage to come out.

What I don't get is the following:

1) She has apparently been attracted to women all her life. Attraction is natural -- something one is born with. So then, now that she is out as a female, why is she considering dating men? This I don't get. Can anyone help me understand something that I am not getting, or do you see this as ****ed up as I do?

2) Why the hell is she being so outspoken as a staunch Republican, a party that does not give one flying **** about her welfare and rights as a transgendered person? Why want a government that does not hold dear matters that are hugely important?

Jenner is a mentally ill man who has a lot of issues - and one issue is that he's always desperate for attention.

He's not a woman, I don't care what people say - because people who are truly transgender don't just get boob implants and think 'life as a woman' is all about wearing high-heels. I think he's an insult to every female and transgendered person out there - making a mockery of real people and their struggles.

He's just an asshole who made a damned good living for himself by being a very masculine male - and still is masculine . . . tits cannot take that away.
 
Can only allude to point 2.
Some people aren't single issue voters and have more nuanced beliefs beyond "Us vs Them."

I agree and I am sure that Jenner -- for instance -- has appreciated the Republican-led tax cuts. But to allow oneself to be seen by a party as unequal--- well to me -- that is where I would draw the line.
 
It's also about HOW and WHY change happens. If the choice is a legally equal union not called marriage or forcing the word marriage to change because...

Idiotic and retarded semantics. And you thinks libs get their feelings all butt-hurt over silly words? Jeepers... grow a pair. Again. :2razz:
 
Jenner is a mentally ill man who has a lot of issues - and one issue is that he's always desperate for attention.

He's not a woman, I don't care what people say - because people who are truly transgender don't just get boob implants and think 'life as a woman' is all about wearing high-heels. I think he's an insult to every female and transgendered person out there - making a mockery of real people and their struggles.

He's just an asshole who made a damned good living for himself by being a very masculine male - and still is masculine . . . tits cannot take that away.


You make a lot of broad statements. I don't know if he's mentally ill or not.
 
AFAIK the dating men thing is experimental, as she feels she may be more bisexual now. I only know this from a brief interview I saw.

As for the GOP thing... there are lots of LGBT Republicans out there who vote Repub because of various values. To me it makes as much sense as as a poor person voting for Trump but hey, they have free will.

I doubt if one can 'know' anything from interviews. People, and not only politicians, often say things because they calculate which opinions will be best received by an an audience. It may be (or of course may not be) that Jenner says he now wants to date men because he believes that it is now what is expected of him, to add plausibility to his claim to be a woman.
 
Jenner is a mentally ill man who has a lot of issues - and one issue is that he's always desperate for attention.

He's not a woman, I don't care what people say - because people who are truly transgender don't just get boob implants and think 'life as a woman' is all about wearing high-heels. I think he's an insult to every female and transgendered person out there - making a mockery of real people and their struggles.

He's just an asshole who made a damned good living for himself by being a very masculine male - and still is masculine . . . tits cannot take that away.
hm, I love it when someone has the guts to speak their mind...thanks, that's food for thought
 
Idiotic and retarded semantics. And you thinks libs get their feelings all butt-hurt over silly words? Jeepers... grow a pair. Again. :2razz:

MG its that callous attitude that helps keep the sides apart. If its "just semantics" why are you so gung ho to force changing the definition of marriage?
 
I agree and I am sure that Jenner -- for instance -- has appreciated the Republican-led tax cuts. But to allow oneself to be seen by a party as unequal--- well to me -- that is where I would draw the line.

Rhetoric vs. reality.
Transgender persons aren't likely to have any rights rolled back, no matter who is in charge.
 
Well, if you have a "natural curiosity" why not write the subject of your curiosity a letter? Then you'll get your answers from the horse's mouth.

What's to debate? Might as well debate why YOU are the way you are. Although since you are a member at least we'd get some clear answers :roll:
Evidently the debate is whether or not the OP is allowed to debate. It shouldn't be a debate but sadly it seems to be.
If you are still having issues with what the debate is about you can read the 4 pages of it.

I've read, talked and explored the issue. So far, honestly, for me Men are pigs. And ugly. If that changes I'll let you know ;P
It's not that they are against equal rights, they are against making special rules for groups of people. It separates people, causes division, isn't the place of the Federal Government. It's not out of malice or hate. I won't lie and say there are not RIGHT wing homophobes, but they are being more and more marginalized
This seems about right. One of the biggest differences between the approach of the Republicans and Democrats (as illusionary as that is) is that Republicans don't believe in the Government mandating morality (don't make the rich give more, they should and do do it on their own, don't provide special programs for minorities because it makes them treated even less equal, etc) whereas Democrats tend to be for the idea that sometimes people, especially rich and powerful people, are so morally bankrupt that the Government needs to govern morality, that someone needs to look out for the rights of the few even when it inconveniences the many, etc).
Neither side is "wrong" IMO, they just have different approaches. And that was a broad paintbrush. It is usually deeper than that.
 
Let me just start by saying I am empathetic to her plight. Though I have not walked in her shoes, I can understand that she felt awkward in a man's body. That was a huge burden to carry for all of those years and I am happy she had the courage to come out.

What I don't get is the following:

1) She has apparently been attracted to women all her life. Attraction is natural -- something one is born with. So then, now that she is out as a female, why is she considering dating men? This I don't get. Can anyone help me understand something that I am not getting, or do you see this as ****ed up as I do?

2) Why the hell is she being so outspoken as a staunch Republican, a party that does not give one flying **** about her welfare and rights as a transgendered person? Why want a government that does not hold dear matters that are hugely important?

in addition I wonder whether her children call her dad or not
 
Well, if you have a "natural curiosity" why not write the subject of your curiosity a letter? Then you'll get your answers from the horse's mouth.

What's to debate? Might as well debate why YOU are the way you are. Although since you are a member at least we'd get some clear answers :roll:

what are you trying to do ?people start so moronic threads everyday and you think this thread is the worst one ?
 
Just to make a point... gay marriage =/= transgender issues. :)

It is somewhat related though. Some transgender people have their marriages potentially put in jeopardy of being found null and void by the state based on their legal sex at either the time of their marriage or currently without same sex marriage being legal. With same sex marriage being legal, their marital status is not in question for anything dealing with their legal sex.
 
Let me just start by saying I am empathetic to her plight. Though I have not walked in her shoes, I can understand that she felt awkward in a man's body. That was a huge burden to carry for all of those years and I am happy she had the courage to come out.

What I don't get is the following:

1) She has apparently been attracted to women all her life. Attraction is natural -- something one is born with. So then, now that she is out as a female, why is she considering dating men? This I don't get. Can anyone help me understand something that I am not getting, or do you see this as ****ed up as I do?

2) Why the hell is she being so outspoken as a staunch Republican, a party that does not give one flying **** about her welfare and rights as a transgendered person? Why want a government that does not hold dear matters that are hugely important?

To attempt to answer your questions, I'd offer:

1. Being transgender and/or going through a sex change operation seems to me not to be about who you are sexually attracted to or not sexually attracted to, but who you feel you are as a person - individually, you feel that you're a woman in a man's body or a man in a woman's body. There are lots of people who are asexual - some of them may be transgender as well. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are not the same thing.

2. As a liberal, you'd have precious little understanding of how the conservative or Republican mind works. Most liberals - as you seem to promote - vote for a party that gives them the most - whereas most conservatives - as my signature line suggests - want the government to be out of our pockets and out of our bedrooms. Most conservatives wouldn't bring personal matters into the public policy discussion if liberals weren't constantly throwing every personal interest group's whims into the legislative forum. It's likely Caitlyn wants to keep more of her personal wealth and wants the government to stop legislating personal behavior.
 
Let me just start by saying I am empathetic to her plight. Though I have not walked in her shoes, I can understand that she felt awkward in a man's body. That was a huge burden to carry for all of those years and I am happy she had the courage to come out.

What I don't get is the following:

2) Why the hell is she being so outspoken as a staunch Republican, a party that does not give one flying **** about her welfare and rights as a transgendered person? Why want a government that does not hold dear matters that are hugely important?

I think the defining feature of her political identity may be that she's rich, white and privileged. Why wouldn't she vote Republican? All the things that having a positive and supportive position on transgender issues might benefit trans people are dealing with problems that she is immunised against due to her wealth and status.
 
It's also about HOW and WHY change happens. If the choice is a legally equal union not called marriage or forcing the word marriage to change because...

You nor opposite sex couples nor even history own the definition of marriage. So if it changes to include other unions that you don't approve of that is simply how things work, a part of life. I personally don't see it as any sort of forced change but rather simply a change some people don't want to accept has been happening.
 
The whole family should be wiped of the face of the earth
 
Back
Top Bottom