Caitlyn Jenner: Call Me Caitlyn

[kokapetl]

On 12 June 2016 at 4:19 AM, Fostersmom said:

Again, way too short, way too inappropriate. 

 

 

It's like something Tan Mom would wear. 

[howmanywords]

Caitlyn had not only the designer of the dress she ended up wearing, but also a makeup artist and hairdresser with her getting ready for the awards so I question how much "styling" Kim even did.

[millennium]

2 hours ago, howmanywords said:

Caitlyn had not only the designer of the dress she ended up wearing, but also a makeup artist and hairdresser with her getting ready for the awards so I question how much "styling" Kim even did.

It seems fairly well established that Jenner frequently relies on other people to make her presentable, to a point that I wonder if it's more an actual necessity than a luxury.  

[ginger90]

8 hours ago, millennium said:

It seems fairly well established that Jenner frequently relies on other people to make her presentable, to a point that I wonder if it's more an actual necessity than a luxury.  

She needs new people.

[iwasish]

10 hours ago, howmanywords said:

Caitlyn had not only the designer of the dress she ended up wearing, but also a makeup artist and hairdresser with her getting ready for the awards so I question how much "styling" Kim even did.

Kim was there for the opportunity to Instagram and snap chat in sexy bathing suits. 

Kim is all about keeping up appearances.Its been made pretty clear that Caitlyn is estranged from the Kardashian kids to some extent, she's trying to counter that gossip.

[Kromm]

On 7/14/2016 at 1:48 AM, millennium said:

The bare-shouldered look calls attention to all that silly putty hanging off her jaw.  

Yes, as horrible as the thought is, she's better off with a V neck than showing those shoulders.  If she really believes this is about feeling stereotypically feminine the shoulders are just too square/wide.  From what I recall the way women usually de-emphasize that (or in some cases even highlight it in a way that looks good) is by covering them but creating an opening in the middle. 

Or if the waddle is too terrible either way?  Then covering it all. Because you know... she's in her 60s.  It's just life.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Kromm

[millennium]

Imagine you don't get invited to a big party, but you stand in the street outside the party, trying to convince anybody who'll listen how wonderful the folks inside are and that you're proud to be one of them even though it's obvious they want absolutely nothing to do with you.

Caitlyn Jenner Tells GOP Gathering Why She’s a Republican

The event Jenner spoke at was an off-site gathering, unaffiliated with the Republican National Convention.   Sufficiently apart that the Convention delegates and attendees didn't have to acknowledge, think about or lay eyes on the likes of Caitlyn Jenner.

I actually expected that Trump would invite Jenner to speak at the Convention, partly because he's crass enough to exploit Jenner's D-list celebrity, partly because it's common knowledge that Trump had difficulty getting top-shelf politicians and celebrities to speak, and partly because it would be a cheap way to curry favor with LGBT voters.  And famewhore Jenner would have done it in a heartbeat.   After all, big-hearted Mr. Trump let her use his bathroom once.

It didn't occur to me that Trump would choose to pass on what would have been a slam-dunk because that's just how much Republicans hate transgender/LGBT people.

As the article states: 

Quote

This week, the GOP approved a platform that defines marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.” The party drafted language aimed at restricting bathroom usage to individuals’ birth sex and an early version nodded to “conversion therapy,” or the discounted practice of trying to “cure” homosexuality. The published version condemned “the hate campaigns” by “proponents of same-sex marriage” and left many gay and transgender Republicans wondering what there place is in the party and whether they are welcome.

But you keep shilling for them in the street, Jenner, even as you perpetuate this grotesque masquerade of being the voice of transgender America.   Maybe if you're a good dog, they'll let you use the bathroom again someday.

Update: Republican National Convention token gay speaker Peter Thiel just threw transgender people under the bus by referring to the transgender bathroom issue as a national "distraction."  

Edited July 22, 2016 by millennium

[iwasish]

Maybe Kim will write a blog about same sex marriage. She did one on racism and another on      gun control and yet another on the police shootings of black youth.  Now that she's outed TS as a liar, maybe she can turn her attention to more important social subjects?  

[millennium]

I don't know what the Kim-Kanye-Taylor thing is about.   I saw a headline, something like "Kim, Kanye, Taylor -- Who Won?" and I knew if I read it, something inside me would be lost forever. 

[iwasish]

41 minutes ago, millennium said:

I don't know what the Kim-Kanye-Taylor thing is about.   I saw a headline, something like "Kim, Kanye, Taylor -- Who Won?" and I knew if I read it, something inside me would be lost forever. 

Don't read it, save yourself. It's too late for some of us.

[Cosmic Muffin]

I hadn't realized the event she spoke at wasn't part of the official RNC, thanks for that info. I did read a bit about it, probably at DailyKos.com, and they said that while she was speaking outside the event, Ben Carson was inside saying transgender people are "absurd" and also worse things. So she's just going to keep supporting them, even though this election that means supporting Trump? She hasn't got a clue.

Meanwhile, on the RuPaul's Drag Race Battle of the Seasons tour, Sharon Needles is playing Caitlyn in the Snatch Game . There are numerous clips of her doing this, here is a link to just one.  Link!

[Kromm]

It confused me a bit to see that Caitlyn was part of this:

Not that I think Caitlyn is okay for people being shot for being gay, but because the end intent of the video is to pass anti-gun legislation. One wonders if Caitlyn's handlers were made aware of that, since she only appears in the part reading messages about a victim and not the end part where some of the celebs talk about how something has to be done. 

Also, Ryan Murphy (the producer of this) and Caitlyn Jenner does not seem like a very natural alliance.

[millennium]

Considering the media seems to be the only outpost of society that takes Jenner seriously anymore, it's a wonder anyone would risk diluting their message by including her.

[qtpye]

On 6/28/2016 at 3:36 PM, GaT said:

While I'm glad they didn't go with the nude/flag thing, they couldn't have come up with something at least a little attractive? That jumpsuit is doing her no favors, her boobs are flat & she has no waist.

Maybe since she won her medal in the seventies they had some one buy and sew an actual Simplicity at home sewing pattern design from that era for her to wear.

Edited July 22, 2016 by qtpye

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, millennium said:

Considering the media seems to be the only outpost of society that takes Jenner seriously anymore, it's a wonder anyone would risk diluting their message by including her.

The thing is I think putting that together needed some lying on all sides--admittedly through omission. Lying to Jenner by not mentioning the anti-gun message at the end, and lying to most if not all of the other celebs in not letting them know she'd be one of these "voices'.  Because I think at this point many of those people would never willingly appear in something in apparent alignment/ next to Caitlyn Jenner.

I suspect a lot of the people who propped her up early (for example Lady Gaga--who tweeted congratulations after the Vanity Fair cover) are heavily regretting it by now. I can't even imagine someone truly outspoken, like Jane Fonda or Demi Lovato, wanting to be linked to this idiot.

I have to wonder what Laverne Cox and Chaz Bono (both part of this) think. Both supported Jenner early on. Have they recanted since?  But even if they haven't, that doesn't necessarily say to me they'd want to be part of a presentation that's just as much anti-gun as anti-gay right next to Ms. Transrepublican America. You know. Donald Trump's Kitchen Cabinet Member for LGBT Affairs.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Kromm

[millennium]

Quote

Opinion: After Cleveland, how can Caitlyn Jenner be a Republican?

Mary Elizabeth Williams

At a Wednesday Republican National Convention “Big Tent Brunch” for the conservative group American Unity Fund, conservative reality star Caitlyn Jenner affirmed that “I feel like our best hope to get back to a constitutional government… is a Republican Party.” But she also conceded to the crowd, “It was easy to come out as trans. It was hard to come out as Republican.”

I’m sure it was — what with belonging to a party that at the same place and same is busy publicly questioning her very existence.

Just one day before, Tuesday morning, Dr. Ben Carson spoke to the Florida delegation, stating his thoughts on “this whole transgender thing,” and saying, “For thousands of years, mankind has known what a man is and what a woman is. And now, all of a sudden we don’t know anymore. Now, is that the height of absurdity? Because today you feel like a woman, even though everything about you genetically says that you’re a man or vice versa? Wouldn’t that be the same as if you woke up tomorrow morning after seeing a movie about Afghanistan or reading some books and said, “You know what? I’m Afghanistan.”

Carson went on to say that “We have to be willing to call out people for this absolutely ridiculous stuff that they’re trying to put over on us, that they’re trying to put over on our children.”

At least Carson’s consistent — last fall he expressed his distaste for transgender bathroom rights, saying, “It is not fair for them to make everybody else uncomfortable. It’s one of the things that I don’t particularly like about the movement.” And in a January interview, he declared “how silly this is. I mean, its beyond ridiculous that you take the most abnormal situation and then you make everyone else conform to it….And when we start trying to impose the extra rights based on a few people who perhaps are abnormal, where does that lead?”

Carson’s far from the only high ranking Republican National Convention speaker who doesn’t understand how gender works. (Note: It’s not just your genitals!) In May, Trump’s running mate Indiana governor Mike Pence spoke out against Obama administration guidelines for public schools to permit students to use the bathroom facilities appropriate to their identities, saying, “the federal government has no business getting involved in issues of this nature.” And last year, signed into law a “religious freedom” measure that would have permitted businesses to turn away people for their sexual or gender orientation.(It was soon amended to affirm the state “does not and will not be able to discriminate against anyone, anywhere at any time.”)

Last year, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed transgender residents to change their birth certificates, saying it would open up “legal uncertainties,” and a few months later, he mentioned transgender rights in the same breath as terrorism, and stated that where he’s from, “Men go to men’s rooms, women go to women’s rooms and there really shouldn’t be a whole lot of confusion about that — public accommodations. And I don’t think we should be making life more confusing for our children.”

Ted Cruz similarly believes that “As the father of daughters, I’m not terribly excited about men being able to go alone into a bathroom with my daughters.” And when the military opened the door for trans service people, Mike Huckabee fumed that “Just to say I feel differently, that’s absurd that we would just let people identify. If they want to do a gender reassignment surgically, that’s not a taxpayer responsibility. We don’t do breast enhancements…. We don’t do it for a female who says, ‘I’d feel better about myself as a 38D rather than a 34A.”

There are plenty of truly horrifying portions of the Republican Party’s current plank, in particular with regard to its across-the-board views about the LGBT community. But the sheer brazen ignorance that guys like Carson — an actual doctor! — are peddling as the world watches is terrifying. It tells trans people that they aren’t real. That they’re just playing dress-up. That they don’t have a right to go to bathrooms where they feel safe.

And that hateful rhetoric is damaging to individuals and to, frankly, everybody who wants to live in a world where we’re all treated with respect and dignity and freedom from fear. No wonder Caitlyn Jenner had a hard time admitting this is the party she still supports. And how anybody who cares about the rights of trans people could is just, in the words of Ben Carson, absurd.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/opinion-after-cleveland-how-can-caitlyn-jenner-be-a-republican/  

[/quote]

"At least Carson’s consistent — last fall he expressed his distaste for transgender bathroom rights, saying, 'It is not fair for them to make everybody else uncomfortable. It’s one of the things that I don’t particularly like about the movement.'"

Carson seems to have forgotten that it wasn't so long ago people like him were said to make people uncomfortable at lunch counters and on buses, and how the forces of righteousness came to their aid.  

I think the real question isn't how Jenner can call herself a Republican, but how can she call herself transgender?   My opinion only, but I see nothing truly transgender about her.    What I see is someone who likes women's clothes.  Period.  Maybe that's why and how she can so easily call herself Republican. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by millennium

[millennium]

I never saw this picture until yesterday.   It's a detail from the Kardashian's 2013 Christmas card.   The full illustration is a bizarre mural depicting Kris, Kim and the other women of the show as goddesses and priestesses, with the image of a helpless Bruce Jenner off to the side, apparently trapped inside a glass tube, looking forlornly at a gold mannequin wearing his gold medals (countless images of the full card can be found online). 

This was just two years before Jenner announced her transition.

I know the picture is just an artist's interpretation, but it feels like somewhere in that picture lies the truth about why Caitlyn Jenner exists today.

[Coffeecup]

1 hour ago, millennium said:

I never saw this picture until yesterday.   It's a detail from the Kardashian's 2013 Christmas card.   The full illustration is a bizarre mural depicting Kris, Kim and the other women of the show as goddesses and priestesses, with the image of a helpless Bruce Jenner off to the side, apparently trapped inside a glass tube, looking forlornly at a gold mannequin wearing his gold medals (countless images of the full card can be found online). 

This was just two years before Jenner announced her transition.

I know the picture is just an artist's interpretation, but it feels like somewhere in that picture lies the truth about why Caitlyn Jenner exists today.

I remember seeing that card when it came out. It was a totally bizarre photo shoot (or more likely, a bunch of separate pictures photoshopped together). At the time I thought it was odd for Jenner to be placed inside the glass cylinder, looking so unhappy. I assumed it meant Jenner felt stifled by Kris, who was very domineering on the show. But yes, in hindsight we can speculate that the photo referred to Jenner's distress over gender identity. Or if not, maybe it was just a weird coincidence. The guy who designed the photo shoot was David LaChapelle. We don't know how well he knows the family, or whether they gave him any input on how they wanted the card to look.

 I looked up some old articles about the card. Most articles make the point that Jenner was the only male in the family included in the photo. Rob, Scott, Lamar (married to Khloe at the time), and Kayne (engaged to Kim at the time and father of then-baby North) were not included. One article pointed out that if you hunted through the photo, you could see images of the guys. Kayne was shown on the cover of a Rolling Stone magazine on the floor. Lamar was shown on the covers of several tabloids, and Kris Humphries was shown on one tabloid cover. Scott and Rob were not shown in any form.

http://www.eonline.com/news/486434/analyzing-the-kardashian-christmas-card-24-thing-you-may-not-have-noticed

E Online, Dec. 2, 2013, "Analyzing the Kardashian Christmas Card: 24 Things You May Not Have Noticed"

Two things I noticed:  Kylie had her original thin lips. Khloe's face looked completely different than the face she has today.

E noted: "But while the card may have been lacking in the men, it featured Kim Kardashian's face 60 times."  LOL, of course it did. She's the engine pulling the Kardashian money train.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Coffeecup

[GaT]

34 minutes ago, Coffeecup said:

We don't know how well he knows the family, or whether they gave him any input on how they wanted the card to look.

He knows Kanye, in 2006 he photographed him as Jesus, so of course Kanye likes him. Kanye was the one who got him to do the Christmas card.

[Coffeecup]

7 minutes ago, GaT said:

He knows Kanye, in 2006 he photographed him as Jesus, so of course Kanye likes him. Kanye was the one who got him to do the Christmas card.

Aha!  Kayne probably knew many of the family secrets by then... like Jenner secretly dressing as a woman, and getting caught at it by the daughters a few times. Maybe Kayne had a feeling the transition was coming at some point in the future.

I'm still puzzled, though, over why the glass container had the word "cashier" on it. Must have something to do with money.. Maybe Jenner wanted out of the family situation back then, but felt trapped by a desire to keep getting the KUWTK show money?

[millennium]

There's no allusion to gender dysphoria that I see in the Christmas card.  Not even a hint.   What I see is celebrity dysphoria: Bruce Jenner isolated --hermetically sealed even -- from the family fame machine, gazing in despair at the celebrity and heroic status that was once his.   He is a captive eunuch in that picture, emasculated by the powerful women portrayed so regally just a few feet away.

It makes me feel queasy to look at that picture.   I think of the damage Caitlyn Jenner has done.   I still cringe every time that asshole stands before an audience and utters "trans this" or "trans that."   This picture tends to solidify all my worst suspicions of her true motivations. 

[qtpye]

Quote

There's no allusion to gender dysphoria that I see in the Christmas card.  Not even a hint.   What I see is celebrity dysphoria: Bruce Jenner isolated --hermetically sealed even -- from the family fame machine, gazing in despair at the celebrity and heroic status that was once his.   He is a captive eunuch in that picture, emasculated by the powerful women portrayed so regally just a few feet away.

In other words...Merry Christmas everybody!

[millennium]

While Jenner's making appearances as a loyal pariah outside the Republican Convention, something a little different is happening in Philadelphia ...

Meet Sarah McBride, the First Transgender Speaker to Address a Major Party Convention

In my eyes, this is bigger, more important, and will reach more people in a more meaningful way than anything Jenner has ever done, or will ever do.

Edited July 27, 2016 by millennium

[Almost 3000]

On ‎7‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 0:14 AM, millennium said:

There's no allusion to gender dysphoria that I see in the Christmas card.  Not even a hint.   What I see is celebrity dysphoria: Bruce Jenner isolated --hermetically sealed even -- from the family fame machine, gazing in despair at the celebrity and heroic status that was once his.   He is a captive eunuch in that picture, emasculated by the powerful women portrayed so regally just a few feet away.

It makes me feel queasy to look at that picture.   I think of the damage Caitlyn Jenner has done.   I still cringe every time that asshole stands before an audience and utters "trans this" or "trans that."   This picture tends to solidify all my worst suspicions of her true motivations. 

When Caitlin first came out I mentioned the xmas card and you have put into words what I was thinking about at the time but felt uncomfortable commenting. I had the some suspicions too, possibly the same ones as you.

[millennium]

2 hours ago, Almost 3000 said:

When Caitlin first came out I mentioned the xmas card and you have put into words what I was thinking about at the time but felt uncomfortable commenting. I had the some suspicions too, possibly the same ones as you.

I read a blog yesterday I had never seen before.   It's by a drag performer named Phaylen Fairchild.   Her post made me feel the way my post made you feel.

Here's the link:

Caitlyn Jenner is a Fraud

It's a scathing critique of Jenner, capped by her conclusion:

Bruce didn’t want to become a woman.

He wanted to be a fucking Kardashian.  

 

[millennium]

[MarysWetBar]

I'm always careful about what i say about Caitlyn. Honestly tho. .i have never in my life seen a sixty - something year old woman dressed like this. 

She would look so much nicer in age appropriate clothing! 

[iwasish]

8 hours ago, MarysWetBar said:

I'm always careful about what i say about Caitlyn. Honestly tho. .i have never in my life seen a sixty - something year old woman dressed like this. 

She would look so much nicer in age appropriate clothing! 

Has she ever seen a woman in age appropriate clothing? Or even appropriate clothing.?

[FanOfTheFans]

10 hours ago, millennium said:

I read a blog yesterday I had never seen before.   It's by a drag performer named Phaylen Fairchild.   Her post made me feel the way my post made you feel.

Here's the link:

Caitlyn Jenner is a Fraud

It's a scathing critique of Jenner, capped by her conclusion:

 

 Very well said. Thanks for the link. 

[StatisticalOutlier]

Quote

 

Bruce didn’t want to become a woman.

He wanted to be a fucking Kardashian.  

 

I called it, but unfortunately only to Mr. Outlier.  But he'll vouch for me.

When this whole thing first started, my initial reaction was that you can't trust anything from or around any Kardashian.  But then I thought this was a rather extreme ploy for attention, even in the Kardashian world, so I began to doubt myself. 

Phaylen's analysis makes sense to me, and at least makes me believe I'm not totally insane.  I try to pay as little attention as possible to any of this, but I'm really glad I dropped by today.  Thanks for the link, millennium.

[Mu Shu]

On July 14, 2016 at 3:27 AM, millennium said:

She's 66 years old trying to pass herself off as 25.   There's just no way to look like anything but a waxwork or a clown.

i feel for her there.  She never got to be girly until she was in her sixties.  However, those sleeves are stupid.  Cute shoes. 

[GaT]

8 hours ago, Mu Shu said:

i feel for her there.  She never got to be girly until she was in her sixties.  However, those sleeves are stupid.  Cute shoes. 

I can absolutely see what she's doing, she wants to be the pretty, sexy, young thing, but it's just too late. You can be pretty & sexy in your 60s, but not by dressing like you're 25, you have to be age & body appropriate. It has to be hard to be a 60 years old woman when you never lived years 1- 59. That said, I still think she's a clueless idiot who should never speak or appear in public again.

Edited July 31, 2016 by GaT

[kokapetl]

18 hours ago, millennium said:

Everyone who sees her will think "why do her arms have seams, oh wait, now I get it". 

I guess it's a good dress for de-emphasizing her shoulders. 

The fillers have been re-upped. 

[iwasish]

Kim chose that dress for her? There's some repressed anger going on there...

Only thing worse would have been having Kanye style her. 

[GaT]

She's wearing about 3 inches of foundation & powder in this picture, & her face matches the flesh color part of the dress, but it doesn't match her neck. Also, whoever did the photoshopping & decided that a 60 years old woman would have the smooth skin of a 18 years old girl should have maybe given her the neck of an 18 years old girl too. She looks like a doll whose head has been put on the wrong body.

[millennium]

4 hours ago, Mu Shu said:

i feel for her there.  She never got to be girly until she was in her sixties.  However, those sleeves are stupid.  Cute shoes. 

Lots of transgender women don't make the change until their 40s or 50s.   They don't go "girly" for several reasons, including that their jobs and often their lives depend on not calling undue attention to themselves.   Most have dreamed all their lives about being accepted as women and not being labeled freaks.    Jenner doesn't have to worry about being called a freak because no one has the balls to do it, so it's just the rest of us, the non-celebrity transgender people, who will be labeled freaks instead.   All she does with her clownish look and her absurd get-ups is give enemies of transgender people ammunition to ridicule us and justify their arguments that we're just men with fucked-up fetishes who want to "play dress up."

Nothing -- NOTHING -- about her says that she has any interest in being taken seriously as a woman.   The public may assume the same about the rest of us by association.

[laurakaye]

Caitlyn: look at Helen Mirren for a perfect example of a smokin' 71 year old.  It can be done.

[Coffeecup]

More lawsuit activity. Caitlyn is suing the paparazzi, claiming they caused her to have the accident that killed Kim Howe because they were following her and distracted her.

http://www.people.com/article/caitlyn-jenner-sues-paparazzi-over-2015-fatal-car-accident People,  Aug. 4, 2016, "Caitlyn Jenner Sues Paparazzi, Alleging They Share Responsibility in Fatal Car Accident"

Caitlyn Jenner is suing paparazzi photographers for what she alleges was their role in a February 2015 fatal accident involving Jenner.

In court documents obtained by PEOPLE Jenner accuses the photographers – collectively referred to as "the Stalker Defendants" – of "harassing [her] throughout the day up through the time of the accident."

Jenner describes the alleged harassment as driving too close to her vehicle in order to snap photos, tailgating her and overall driving in a reckless manner in attempts to get their pictures.

"As a direct consequence and result of this stalking, harassing and distracting conduct, [Jenner] was visually distracted, and the negligence and reckless conduct of the Stalker Defendants did contribute to the cause of an accident where seconds and split seconds mattered," the document reads. 

In the lawsuit, Jenner is asking that the accused parties be held at least partially responsible for any liability Jenner ensues, and that they bear the financial responsibility of any damages and legal proceedings that occurred as a result of the accident... 
***

Good grief. Caitlyn killed Howe in that accident. She's already made settlements with Howe's stepchildren and with Jessica Steindorff (who stopped her vehicle in front of Howe, causing Howe to hit her brakes). Why can't Caitlyn just let this tragedy go and just get on with her life? Does she want more money or something?

As I recall from the articles about the accident, there were no paps chasing Caitlyn on the Pacific Coast Highway that day. She's trying to make this into a Princess Diana situation.

[sunsheyen]

That's what was so crazy when I read this. For all the coverage that occured, there was nothing said about or indicating paps or a chase or distractions or anything of that nature. Now, all of a sudden, paparazzi is to blame? 

she's so full of shit.

[FanOfTheFans]

One would think her PR people would have advised her not to file suit. It makes her look petty and unfeeling, considering a life was lost. But I guess money trumps empathy and reputation. Hail the almighty dollar. 

[millennium]

On 8/6/2016 at 1:25 AM, Coffeecup said:

More lawsuit activity. Caitlyn is suing the paparazzi, claiming they caused her to have the accident that killed Kim Howe because they were following her and distracted her.

http://www.people.com/article/caitlyn-jenner-sues-paparazzi-over-2015-fatal-car-accident People,  Aug. 4, 2016, "Caitlyn Jenner Sues Paparazzi, Alleging They Share Responsibility in Fatal Car Accident"

Caitlyn Jenner is suing paparazzi photographers for what she alleges was their role in a February 2015 fatal accident involving Jenner.

In court documents obtained by PEOPLE Jenner accuses the photographers – collectively referred to as "the Stalker Defendants" – of "harassing [her] throughout the day up through the time of the accident."

Jenner describes the alleged harassment as driving too close to her vehicle in order to snap photos, tailgating her and overall driving in a reckless manner in attempts to get their pictures.

"As a direct consequence and result of this stalking, harassing and distracting conduct, [Jenner] was visually distracted, and the negligence and reckless conduct of the Stalker Defendants did contribute to the cause of an accident where seconds and split seconds mattered," the document reads. 

In the lawsuit, Jenner is asking that the accused parties be held at least partially responsible for any liability Jenner ensues, and that they bear the financial responsibility of any damages and legal proceedings that occurred as a result of the accident... 
***

Good grief. Caitlyn killed Howe in that accident. She's already made settlements with Howe's stepchildren and with Jessica Steindorff (who stopped her vehicle in front of Howe, causing Howe to hit her brakes). Why can't Caitlyn just let this tragedy go and just get on with her life? Does she want more money or something?

As I recall from the articles about the accident, there were no paps chasing Caitlyn on the Pacific Coast Highway that day. She's trying to make this into a Princess Diana situation.

I addressed this in the media thread in the I Am Cait forum and cited an article from Feb 2015.    The official investigation found no indication that Jenner was being chased by paparazzi.   It bothers me a lot that all the articles covering this asinine lawsuit fail to mention the official finding.   It gives readers the false impression there might be substance to Jenner's lie.

This is a move that smacks of desperation.   I think Jenner is anticipating a finding of liability in the civil lawsuits and is scared to death of losing millions, especially now that her lame show has reportedly been canceled.

Jenner's willingness to admit being "visually distracted" suggests to me the plaintiff has evidence proving Jenner was visually distracted.  Unable to refute it, Jenner is trying to weasel out of it by shifting the blame to somebody else.  

[millennium]

14 hours ago, sunsheyen said:

That's what was so crazy when I read this. For all the coverage that occured, there was nothing said about or indicating paps or a chase or distractions or anything of that nature. Now, all of a sudden, paparazzi is to blame? 

she's so full of shit.

Actually, Jenner claimed it at the time but police found no evidence of the Escalade being chased.   It made Jenner look like a liar and a coward.   Of course that didn't stop ESPN from giving her a "Courage" award.

[iwasish]

The video of the accident shows there were no paparazzi and I haven't read anything that  claims that other drivers were equally distracted by, or even aware of any paparazzi.

Additionally, she's been accustomed to being followed by or stalked by the paps for years, so it shouldn't have been that distracting . 

[millennium]

On 8/7/2016 at 9:34 AM, iwasish said:

The video of the accident shows there were no paparazzi and I haven't read anything that  claims that other drivers were equally distracted by, or even aware of any paparazzi.

Additionally, she's been accustomed to being followed by or stalked by the paps for years, so it shouldn't have been that distracting . 

Jenner was in the news just a couple days before reports of the lawsuit broke, having told a talk show host that she contemplated suicide after paparazzi photographed her leaving the doctor following a tracheal shave.

The timing seems hardly a coincidence.   Jenner tells the world that paparazzi nearly pushed her to suicide.  Then two days later she's in the news again trying to revive the "paparazzi were chasing me" excuse.

While she's at it, maybe she can pin the blame for her show's cancellation on the paparazzi too.

Edited August 8, 2016 by millennium

[Kromm]

I'm curious. Do we think Caitlyn's thirst for P.R. will mean she's going to take a trip down to Rio when the Track and Field events are going on so she can get her snoot on TV without even trying?

[Maya]

7 hours ago, Kromm said:

I'm curious. Do we think Caitlyn's thirst for P.R. will mean she's going to take a trip down to Rio when the Track and Field events are going on so she can get her snoot on TV without even trying?

Good call. 

[millennium]

7 hours ago, Kromm said:

I'm curious. Do we think Caitlyn's thirst for P.R. will mean she's going to take a trip down to Rio when the Track and Field events are going on so she can get her snoot on TV without even trying?

 

I'm going to guess no, because there's no potential payout or fabricated award, plus Jenner would have to foot the bill for the trip.

[Kromm]

9 hours ago, millennium said:

I'm going to guess no, because there's no potential payout or fabricated award, plus Jenner would have to foot the bill for the trip.

Unless she can con NBC into paying for it.

[millennium]

I suspect her likability rating is on a rapid decline.   The show's canceled, the speaking tour's canceled, the promised "one year later" interview with Diane Sawyer never materialized, the ballyhoo over "Caitlyn Jenner is joining the cast of Transparent" has been revealed as essentially a cameo in a single episode.   She crashed into Kim Howe, resulting in death, and is now trying to blame the paparazzi in direct contradiction to the official investigation.  She's being sued.   The LGBT community can't stand her.   The Kardashians have reportedly frozen her out ...

Why would NBC go out of its way to introduce that element into their Olympics broadcast?

[Artsda]

I am Cait is officially done.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/16/i-am-cait-canceled