Jenny Boylan Wanted to Quit I Am Cait Over Jenner's Republic

[Ayla]

Caitlyn Jenner’s primary mentor on her reality show, I Am Cait, said today that “hanging out with her was infuriating” and that she nearly quit the show.

Jenny Boylan, a professor who is one of the most well known transgender thinkers and author of 13 books, reacted to Jenner declaring in an interview with The Advocate that she wants to become “trans ambassador” for President Ted Cruz with a rejoinder on her website.

“No, I wasn’t surprised by Caitlyn Jenner’s expression of support for Ted Cruz,” wrote Boylan. “I heard her say as much hour after hour this fall as I worked on her show. Everyone needs to get their mind around the fact that politically she is, like half the country, a conservative, and the sooner you get your mind around this, the angrier you can be.”

In the very first episode of the second season, which premiers on Sunday, conversation turned toward Republican politics, and Boylan says she can be seen striking Jenner with a rolled-up newspaper — “and not ironically either. I smack her like she is a basset hound that just took a dump on the carpet.”

The Internet seems to have responded similarly to Jenner’s support for Cruz (though it’s not an outright endorsement). Twitter is filled with disappointment and outrage that she'd back someone who opposes trans people at every turn. So, Boylan mostly used her post today to explain why she’s still on the show, divulging she’d actually tried to quit.

“On the second day of filming, I tried to quit the show,” she remembers. “I had a lengthy conversation with the show-runner saying, ‘I just can’t do this. I want to go home.’”

Boylan has helped Jenner from the beginning, playing a large role in the Diane Sawyer special when Jenner came out. And she wound up staying, along with a number of other trans cast members who don’t share Jenner’s politics.

“I stayed in there,” Boylan said. “In part, because on Survivor, (my favorite show), I always get angry when people ‘quit the game,’ as if they really didn’t understand what they were signing on for when they agreed to spend 39 days boiling rice and eating tarantulas.”

Really, she stayed because of hope that things could improve.

“How do we learn to live with people whom we disagree? How do we learn to love each other? How is it possible to communicate with people whom we want to smack with a newspaper?” she wondered. “The question, for me, is not, will Cait become a liberal? There is no operation for that, alas. But she CAN become someone who listens, who opens her heart, who has compassion. And so can I.”

www.advocate.com/television/2016/3/04/jenny-boylan-wanted-quit-i-am-cait-over-jenners-republican-views  

[Deleted]

“How do we learn to live with people whom we disagree? How do we learn to love each other? How is it possible to communicate with people whom we want to smack with a newspaper?” she wondered. “The question, for me, is not, will Cait become a liberal? There is no operation for that, alas. But she CAN become someone who listens, who opens her heart, who has compassion. And so can I.”

I can sympathize with the sentiments expressed here.  But I will say that I get very tired of this notion that we must "learn to live with people with whom we disagree".  There are disagreements, and then there are disagreements.

Would we ask a Jew to learn to live with Nazis?  Would we ask black people to learn to live with the KKK?  Then don't ask us transpeople to learn to live with Ted Cruz (or Caitlyn Jenner either if she's going to put herself on that side of the line).

I can live with someone who believes in no gun-control laws.  I can live with someone who believes in supply-side economics.  I can live with someone who believes I'm going to hell because I'm not a Christian or a Moslem or whatever.  Those are disagreements.

What I cannot live with, and what I should not be expected to live with, is someone who doesn't even see me as human, who thinks he has the right to trample my life and my freedom and my dignity.  There's no compromise here.  This isn't a disagreement.  This is a total denial of somebody's humanity.  We don't have to learn to live with that.

[Shan]

Mar 7, 2016 3:02:34 GMT 8 @foxglove said:

“How do we learn to live with people whom we disagree? How do we learn to love each other? How is it possible to communicate with people whom we want to smack with a newspaper?” she wondered. “The question, for me, is not, will Cait become a liberal? There is no operation for that, alas. But she CAN become someone who listens, who opens her heart, who has compassion. And so can I.”

I can sympathize with the sentiments expressed here.  But I will say that I get very tired of this notion that we must "learn to live with people with whom we disagree".  There are disagreements, and then there are disagreements.

Would we ask a Jew to learn to live with Nazis?  Would we ask black people to learn to live with the KKK?  Then don't ask us transpeople to learn to live with Ted Cruz (or Caitlyn Jenner either if she's going to put herself on that side of the line).

I can live with someone who believes in no gun-control laws.  I can live with someone who believes in supply-side economics.  I can live with someone who believes I'm going to hell because I'm not a Christian or a Moslem or whatever.  Those are disagreements.

What I cannot live with, and what I should not be expected to live with, is someone who doesn't even see me as human, who thinks he has the right to trample my life and my freedom and my dignity.  There's no compromise here.  This isn't a disagreement.  This is a total denial of somebody's humanity.  We don't have to learn to live with that.

Whoa-whoa stop! We can't live with someone we disagree with, but others have to live with us who they disagree with? Isn't there something a little odd about this line of thinking? Can it be that we are being a bit hypocritical here? Jews living with Nazis and blacks living with the KKK is an incomparable stretch! Look, conservatives really want a much smaller government and all agree that the government has no business in people's personal lives as it's not government's business, and they want out. All the moral oversight and nanny state laws came to being when women were finally allowed to vote and pushed to drive their men to back them on issues that have no business having any oversight. Granted, the religious right has been a pain-in-the-ass, but it's driven by the women who hold the P-power over their menfolk. Yeah, the conservatives have to take a negative stand against Trans, Homo and marriage issues because they are forced to by that female driven constituency. They would prefer to not have anything to do with it, meanwhile people like Kaitlyn and myself might just become a part of a different sphere of influence that can encourage them to rescind some of the BS and shrink the government by doing away with personal oversight. The liberals need to quit being such Nazis themselves and consider the possibilities.

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2016 3:29:23 GMT 8 Shan said:

Mar 7, 2016 3:02:34 GMT 8 @foxglove said:

“How do we learn to live with people whom we disagree? How do we learn to love each other? How is it possible to communicate with people whom we want to smack with a newspaper?” she wondered. “The question, for me, is not, will Cait become a liberal? There is no operation for that, alas. But she CAN become someone who listens, who opens her heart, who has compassion. And so can I.”

I can sympathize with the sentiments expressed here.  But I will say that I get very tired of this notion that we must "learn to live with people with whom we disagree".  There are disagreements, and then there are disagreements.

Would we ask a Jew to learn to live with Nazis?  Would we ask black people to learn to live with the KKK?  Then don't ask us transpeople to learn to live with Ted Cruz (or Caitlyn Jenner either if she's going to put herself on that side of the line).

I can live with someone who believes in no gun-control laws.  I can live with someone who believes in supply-side economics.  I can live with someone who believes I'm going to hell because I'm not a Christian or a Moslem or whatever.  Those are disagreements.

What I cannot live with, and what I should not be expected to live with, is someone who doesn't even see me as human, who thinks he has the right to trample my life and my freedom and my dignity.  There's no compromise here.  This isn't a disagreement.  This is a total denial of somebody's humanity.  We don't have to learn to live with that.

Mar 7, 2016 3:29:23 GMT 8 Shan said:

Whoa-whoa stop! We can't live with someone we disagree with, but others have to live with us who they disagree with? Isn't there something a little odd about this line of thinking? Can it be that we are being a bit hypocritical here? Jews living with Nazis and blacks living with the KKK is an incomparable stretch!

First of all, Shan, if you think it's an incomparable stretch, we might think about Leelah Alcorn and all the transwomen of color who are getting murdered.

But this is the difference between me and Ted Cruz: I don't challenge Ted Cruz's right to live his life as he pleases. I don't challenge his civil and human rights. But he does challenge my rights. Ted Cruz isn't required to like me or "agree" with me. I don't like him. But I don't question his rights. Ted Cruz doesn't just "disagree" with me. He wants to erase my life. That's what I was saying. This isn't a "disagreement".

Mar 7, 2016 3:29:23 GMT 8 Shan said:

Look, conservatives really want a much smaller government and all agree that the government has no business in people's personal lives as it's not government's business, and they want out. All the moral oversight and nanny state laws came to being when women were finally allowed to vote and pushed to drive their men to back them on issues that have no business having any oversight. Granted, the religious right has been a pain-in-the-ass, but it's driven by the women who hold the P-power over their menfolk. Yeah, the conservatives have to take a negative stand against Trans, Homo and marriage issues because they are forced to by that female driven constituency. They would prefer to not have anything to do with it, meanwhile people like Kaitlyn and myself might just become a part of a different sphere of influence that can encourage them to rescind some of the BS and shrink the government by doing away with personal oversight. The liberals need to quit being such Nazis themselves and consider the possibilities.

Well, I'll leave this analysis to you, Shan. But when I say that Ted Cruz has to respect my civil and human rights, that doesn't make me a Nazi. When I propose to take his civil and human rights away from him, then you can call me a Nazi. Ted Cruz can believe whatever his faith tells him to believe. On earth he has that right, and after death his God will judge him. But this doesn't give him the right to deny other people their rights. He's the Nazi, Shan.

[Kira]

Seems to me to be a hard line to sell, that all conservatives don't want to legislate on personal issues, with all these laws coming from them about Trans things. It's not a nanny state issue at all, or a woman thing. Hell, we all know women have much less problem with lgbt than the men who make up the power. That's why almost exclusively, lgbt hating men have been putting these bills forward. It's not really even a conservative thing either. Sure conservatives seem more likely to have issues with lgbt, but some do, some don't. The problem is *Cruz* hates us, wants to legislate against us, and therefore should be opposed by us.

[Shan]

Muhahaha pissy, pissy, OK girls we can agree to disagree, I still love your sweet little selves regardless.