@saintfan: The show itself does have some value from what I have seen of it. I hope that they continue to emphasize the reality of what being a transgender person is society means, about the losses people experience doing it, and about the awkwardness of things like dating and what trans status means. Transwomen ironically deal with something all women deal with, there is a lot of porn featuring transgender women out there, and like all porn it presents a very unrealistic image, even more so then the people in porn in general (which I didnât think was possible), so you end up with those who see someone who is a transgender woman as a fetish object or a kinky sex toy come to life. Not to mention that a lot of people, especially men, if they find out canât handle it. It reminds of all all the hooplah about transgender people using the appropriate restroom, that these are really âmen in dressesâ or whatnot, eager to ogle women, when the reality is that in going into the restroom, they simply want to relieve themselves and get out of there as fast as possible, among other things, not to have someone spot their background and make a fuss. I have no problem with the backdrop of the show, it does attempt to educate, my issue is that I feel that Caitlyn thrust herself/was thrust out there before she had time to really adjust, and that could have some negative things about it, thatâs all.
Musicprnt, I agree with 99% of what youâve been saying, but I do have a couple of minor terminology comments. First, itâs trans women, not transwomen (just as itâs not blackwomen, gaywomen, etc. Itâs an attribute and an adjective, not an inextricable characteristic eternally separating them from the category of âwomenâ). Second, most trans people I know (including me) no longer use terms like M to F or F to M, because of the simplistic implications. Otherwise, carry on!
@donna:
With the âtranswomenâ, I think that one was me and the keyboard on my mac, not an intentional piece of writing:). I realize M to F and F to M are simplistic, I guess I have to catch up to the times and realize the times, they are a changing:)
My University of Washington alumni magazine came the other day. The feature article is about transgender students at the UW, how theyâve coped and adjusted, what their challenges are and how the UW is trying to help. These other issues were brought up: the difficulty in finding a place where they feel OK about using the facilities and gender neutral bathroom options, housing, names at roll call or in general, identification, and personal safety The article referenced Caitlyn Jenner in helping to bring these issues to the public consciousness and making them OK to discuss. It also used Caitlynâs experience to say that most students donât have the resources to make that kind of sweeping transition and then just go about their business.
The problem with the Caitlyn Jenner experience (or whatever you want to call it) is that it is very ambiguous to me. On the one hand, having a celebrity like this, someone who helped define the term celebrity (basically, the whole Kardashian being famous for being famous), it means she would get attention, and yes, bring bearing on the issue of being transgender, since her public transition, for example, the NY Times has been doing a lot of features on transgender people and their lives, and prominently features (they have had Jennifer Boylan writing op eds for a while). And if it shows others, it is a great thing.
The ambiguity is the negatives this brings. The over the top way she has done this, with the Vanity Fair piece, and the personal dressers and makeup people and such, can make it seem like an exercise in narcissism and big girl dress-up, or an extension of the vanity and stupidity of âkeeping up with the Kardassiansâ. Some of this is because she kind of jumped off the deep end in one sense, flung herself out there quickly, after a couple of months it seems of surgery and so forth, and she is still in the discovery phase which can be like a teenage girl finding herself. I also suspect it comes off to a lot of people as very shallow or worse, as some sort of throwback to the idea of what being a woman means.
The other problem is she also hasnât quite come to terms with more than a bit of arrogant privilege on her part, she still in many ways to me appears to be in the realm of Bruce, the star white male in the middle of celebrity and wealth, and it comes across in what she says. She may not want to be a spokesperson, but when she says things like transgender people who use public services are somehow âmade dependentâ and that maybe if they didnât have that, they would be forced to work, which totally ignores the reality of a lot of transgender folk, that being transgender makes it even more impossible to find work as much as they may want to.I also have heard through the grapevine that she also has spoken out against ENDA protections for LGBT people, arguing that all that will do is create more bureaucracy for business.
The thing on the Ellen show shocked my wife when Caitlyn was fumbling all over the place with same sex marriage, in effect buying into the stuff with the term marriage, I donât know how Ellen held it in, the contradiction between âI donât want to get in the way of loveâ yet not understanding one little bit about the term marriage and why it is important that it not be segregated. I donât know whether Caitlyn will continue on this path and then look on the transgender experience from her own narrow little world of uber privilege, if she really is that shallow and incurious and the lives that are shown her in her path of how many transgender folk experience life totally blow over her head, or if she has the ability to grow and learn. The problem is that if you look at her right now, she can come off as a narcissistic word that rhymes with witch, as shallow and unthoughtful as the whole âKardassianâ bunch, and I wonder if that might not negate the good it is doing.
http://gawker.com/caitlyn-jenner-walks-away-from-fatal-crash-a-free-woman-1733845866
Iâm sure all the people on the Internet (not here) who were salivating at the thought of Caitlyn Jenner going to prison (preferably a menâs prison, of course!) for supposedly âmurderingâ someone, and were spreading false stories that she was on the phone at the time of the collision, are terribly disappointed, and will take the position that sheâs only escaping imprisonment because of her wealth and/or celebrity. Too bad for all of them. Accidents do actually happen sometimes, without negligence.
Accident - yes, but not without negligence. Whether she was distracted or simply driving too fast - Caitlyn Jenner started a chain reaction that resulted in a womanâs death. The fact that she is not being charged cannot be equated with lack of any culpability. If Kim Howe had a living spouse or children to fight for her - a different decision might have been reached. I watched a few episides of Caitlynâs show and saw no reflection on causing this womanâs death - just her concern about being placed in a menâs prison. Just speaks to her level of self-absorption.
First, itâs the car in front of the victimâs car that actually started the chain reaction by stopping in mid-block. In any event, an alleged lack of self-reflection on reality TV hardly equals culpability. And Jenner may not have addressed the situation on the show (which I didnât watch), but she certainly expressed regret (as much as her lawyer permitted her to) outside the show. Finally, I seriously doubt that a surviving spouse or children (as opposed to stepchildren, which I believe the victim did have) would have made any difference, or managed to convince the prosecutors, absent evidence that doesnât exist, that it was possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jenner was negligent (at least to fact-finders that hadnât made up their minds in advance).
The purpose of a trial is to let a jury determine if there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no idea which way the verdict would have gone, had there been a trial. Caitlyn failed to slow sufficiently - meaning she was not fully aware of the actions of traffic in front of her. She hit Kim Howeâs car, and then hit the car in front of it. Her driving sent Kim Howeâs car into opposing traffic and to her death.
Kim Howeâs adult stepchildren are suing Caitlyn, as are both other drivers. So, those lawsuits may be the only consequence she faces.
Iâm not saying her actions were malicious or that she âmurderedâ anyone. I do think a trial would have been appropriate, however.
I guess the district attorney thought otherwise â particularly, I suspect, because the most she could have been charged with is a misdemeanor in California, for which I understand people are rarely charged and almost never sent to jail even if convicted. Given that, and the D.A.'s position that the evidence was equivocal as to her negligence, it wouldnât surprise me if they decided it wasnât worth the expense and media circus it would have involved.
I have to agree with Donna, reading the facts of the case as mentioned in the articles I read, it would be really hard for a DA to try and get a conviction in this case. I am not a lawyer (as the people who taught my business law courses would attest), but from being part of a rescue squad many years ago and seeing accident scenes and how they ascribe guilt, unless there is a certainty (for example, if Caitlyn had been driving drunk or under the influence of drugs, legal or otherwise, where she shouldnât have been driving), or if for example she had been driving well above the posted speed limit, or talking on the phone/texting, it is very, very hard to show what I believe is called proximate cause (and I apologize up front, Donna, if I am mangling a legal term, I have heard that used in civic cases, which are obviously different than criminal).
Recreating the events, the victim put on her brakes about 4 seconds before the accident, and apparently Jenner took her foot off the gas, which showed awareness that the victim was slowing down, then 2 seconds later put on the brakes of her car. One of the factors the article does not say is how the victim applied the brakes (which yes, is known, the OBDII system on the car is like a black box, it can tell how hard the brakes were put on). How many times have you driven behind someone and they suddenly slam on the brakes? Older drivers or people nervous behind the wheel will do that, and it does cause accidents, of the accident scenes I was on (probably numbered in the several dozen over the time I was on the squad), there were more than a few like this, someone didnât want to hit a squirrel, someone thought there was something on the roadway they were going to hit, thought someone was going to come onto the road from a side road or driveway, etc. If the victim slammed on the brakes, it is possible Jenner didnât realize how fast she (the victim) was slowing down, then suddenly realized she was stopped (and the accounts I have read are unclear of whether the victim was slowing down or slammed on her brakes; could be the victim initially slowed down, then realized something was ahead of her, and slammed on the brakes).
Based on what I read, I could argue that perhaps Jenner was following too closely, from what I have seen of the PCH it can have pretty heavy traffic, and the rule of thump at the likely speed (prob around 40 mph or so), would be several car lengths, it is possible Jenner was following too closely.
The reason she wasnât charged is she wasnât speeding, and the fact that the victim put her brakes on could have been a contributing cause. As far as I know about vehicular homicide or manslaughter, you have to show there was indifference on a major scale, like driving too fast, swerving out of a lane and cutting someone off, or deliberately bumping them in road rage, with this case there could be a strong case to be made that at most Jenner, from what I read, was guilty only of perhaps not giving enough following distance, but especially if that highway had heavy traffic, that isnât always possible, and it would be a hard sell to show that what happened to the victim was not a combination of circumstances, but rather was primarily Jennerâs fault, and as far as I know (and Donna, maybe you could comment on that), it takes a lot more than simply that Jennerâs car hit the victims, they have to show a trail of willful negligence. The fact that Jenner slowed down when the victim put on her brakes says she was aware, and I suspect that they also have evidence that the victim, for whatever reasons, slammed on the brakes (and it is possible that the woman herself was guilty of something, what if she wasnât paying attention, suddenly saw something, and slammed on the brakes).
As far as the DA not prosecuting,that it is up to a jury to decide, that isnât true. The DA has the job of determining if there is enough evidence to go in front of a grand jury, and given that it is a lot easier to get an indictment than convicting at a trial, if the DA refuses to bring it in front of a Grand Jury it means they feel they have very little to show that in this case Jenner in fact was the main cause of the crash that killed the victim.
The Civil suits will go forward, and it is not unlikely IMO that Jenner will end up having to pay out on the claims (or her insurance). Civil cases have a much weaker standard than criminal ones,in a civil case you can be partly guilty and pay a percent of the sued for amount, you canât be partially guilty (juries can choose a lesser penalty in a criminal case as far as I know, but there is no such thing as partial guilt). When you get into an auto accident, the police report often will assign partial blame, so for example, if you rear end a car that stops suddenly, you can be found partly responsible because you didnât maintain enough following distance, but that is used only as far as I know in figuring out the payout, which company pays what.
As far as her celebrity and wealthy being involved, I think in this case that given Jennerâs notoriety, the DA would be a lot more likely to not drop charges, in large part because DAâs are elected and being accused of going soft on celebrities, even in LA LA land, doesnât go over well in elections.
And mind you, I am not a fan of Caitlyn Jenner, nor am I a softie when it comes to traffic accidents and those who cause them, I saw far too many tragic consequences to easily wave off guilt, I just in this case think that the DA may have been right, based on what has been written about the case.
I just ran across this and was quite struck by it and wanted to share.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/horse-sportsperson-of-the-year_566f0289e4b011b83a6bf818
What in the world does that have to do with Caitlyn Jenner? Are you trying to analogize her situation in some way to a horse vs. a person? If not, whatâs your point?
I think this belongs in the Tennis Thread.
@saintfan thanks for sharing that! That is a really interesting article.
@donnai if you donât understand the article, that is okay.
@DonnaL , I think they mean bc there were ppl who didnât think Jenner should have been given the ESPN Courage award.
I donât understand this.
I thought in California that if you rear-end someone, that unless there are strong other factors, you are 100% responsible for the accident and the ânegligenceâ perspective is by definition, the failure to follow at a safe distance.
hahahahah wrong post shared - I shared that with another FB group (slinking off to find correct article)
=)) L-) #-o 8->
And itâs to late to edit that one 