Congress Moves To Stifle Trump Trans Military Ban

As the Trump administration continues to push for a ban on transgender military service members, new legislation is being introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers to allow open service by trans soldiers.

The Washington Post reports that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced the bill in the U.S. Senate along with Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Calling out President Trump for the proposed ban, which was unceremoniously tweeted out in July 2017, Gillibrand said in a statement, “President Trump’s ban on transgender service members is discrimination, it undermines our military readiness, and it is an insult to the brave patriotic transgender Americans who choose to serve in our military.”

“We should end this discriminatory ban for good and ensure our transgender service members can continue to do their jobs, serve with dignity and protect our country,” she added.

Gillibrand recently announced she making a run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.

The legislation would ban the Pentagon from discharging any currently serving trans soldiers only on the basis of their gender identity. Additionally, new recruits could not be turned away from enlisting based only on their gender identity.

A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by California Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier. Co-sponsoring the bill in the House were Reps. Anthony Brown (D-Md), Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.), Susan Davis (D-Calif.) and John Katko (R-NY).

Last month, the Supreme Court issued a stay of injunction on two lawsuits that blocked the ban. The policy hasn’t gone into effect yet as the last lawsuit is still being appealed in Maryland.

While the House version could very well pass, the Republican majority in the Senate pretty much ensures the legislation will be dead in the water there.

However, even if the bills passed in both chambers, it would land on Donald Trump’s desk where he is sure to veto the legislation.

Both Speier and Gillibrand invited trans soldiers to attend the State of the Union address this week as their guest to highlight the issue.

In related news, one of the highest-ranking officers in the California National Guard announced the state would not discharge trans soldiers from it's ranks.

LGBT advocacy groups praised the bills:

(h/t Washington Post)

Could Donald Trump Make HIV/AIDS A New Priority?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised he would be “much better for the gays” than Hillary Clinton.

So far, that hasn’t been the case with Trump in the White House.

Within hours of taking the oath of office, the White House website was scrubbed of all mention of LGBTQ Americans.

The president has proposed banning transgender military service members and has begun discharging soldiers with HIV.

After several members of his HIV/AIDS advisory panel quit saying “Trump doesn’t care about HIV,” he fired the remaining members in January 2018. (Note: the new advisory panel was sworn in just last week).

The Trump administration has sought to cut funds from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and has flirted with cutting funds to AIDS research.

While HIV/AIDS is not a ‘gay’ disease, the Centers for Disease Control reports the illness disproportionately affects bisexual and gay men. In 2016, gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% of new infections.

So, it comes as a bit of a surprise that Trump could be planning to announce a ten-year plan to end HIV transmissions by 2030 during his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

Politico is reporting that Trump plans to propose a strategy wherein health officials would “spend the first five years focusing on communities across roughly 20 states where the most HIV infections occur,” and then expand efforts to the rest of the country.

The plan reportedly has the support of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and CDC Director Robert Redfield.

According to Politico, Redfield announced at a CDC meeting last year that the eradication of AIDS by 2025 would be possible via “public health tools” like emphasizing more widespread condom use.

It's worth noting that when Redfield was tapped to head up the CDC last year, the news was met with some objections.

At the time, Dr. Peter Lurie penned an essay for the Center for Science in the Public Interest that noted Redfield had supported policies opposed by a majority of health professionals including "mandatory HIV testing, reporting of positive HIV results to public health authorities without the patient’s consent, and quarantining of HIV-positive individuals in the military."

He was also accused of "misrepresenting data about the effectiveness of an experimental AIDS vaccine that he was supporting" in the early 1990s.

While meaningful action on the HIV/AIDS epidemic would certainly be laudable, given this administration’s history on LGBTQ issues, we’ll have to wait and see.

One of Politico’s sources stressed the content of the SOTU speech is still in flux.

Over one million Americans have HIV with approximately 40,000 new infections each year.


The opinions expressed here represent those of the author and not of Instinct Magazine or its other contributors.

(h/t Politico)

SCOTUS Rules Trump Anti-Transgender Military Policy Can Take Effect Immediately


The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down orders that allow Donald Trump’s ban of transgender military service members to go into effect immediately while appeals work their way through the lower courts, according to The New York Times.

The high court issued a brief, unsigned order this morning saying SCOTUS had lifted the injunctions that, until now, blocked the anti-trans policy.

The vote was 5-4 with Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen dissenting.

This morning’s orders stay the injunctions initially issued by Federal District Court judges in Washington State (Trump v. Karnoski) and California (Trump v Stockman), both in the Ninth Circuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had previously vacated a third injunction on January 4.

For the time being, current trans soldiers will not be booted out immediately.

The policy, as tweaked by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, allows transgender service members who are already serving openly to continue to do so and to receive transition-related care.



In July of 2017, President Trump surprised American military leaders and the world when he announced his plan to ban trans military service members after “consultation with my Generals and military experts” due to the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender service members. 

At the time of Trump's announcement, Staff Sgt. Logan Ireland (pictured above) told Air Force News, “I would like to see them try to kick me out of my military.”

“You are not going to deny me my right to serve my country when I am fully qualified and able and willing to give my life," he added.

The American Medical Association (AMA) issued a statement saying there is ‘no medically valid reason’ for banning transgender people from serving in the United States military, but all four service chiefs (Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force) have testified they’ve seen no negative effects from transgender military personnel serving the country they love.

According to a 2016 RAND Corporation study, there are an estimated 1,320 to 6,630 transgender individuals out of the 1.3 million service members on active duty.

From The New York Times:

The policy, announced on Twitter by President Trump and refined by the defense secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, generally prohibits people identifying with a gender different from their biological sex from military service. It makes exceptions for several hundred transgender people already serving openly and for those willing to serve “in their biological sex.”


Lambda Legal, which along with OutServe-SLDN, filed the lawsuit Trump v. Karnoski, issued this statement:


“The Supreme Court’s decisions today are perplexing to say the least: on the one hand denying the Trump administration’s premature request for review of lower court rulings before appellate courts have ruled and rebuffing the administration’s attempt to skirt established rules; and yet on the other allowing the administration to begin to discriminate, at least for now, as the litigation plays out,” Lambda Legal Counsel Peter Renn said.

“For more than 30 months, transgender troops have been serving our country openly with valor and distinction, but now the rug has been ripped out from under them, once again. We will redouble our efforts to send this discriminatory ban to the trash heap of history where it belongs.”

(h/t The New York Times)

Study Shows Higher Rates Of Bullying In Areas Where Voters Favored Trump

In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, teachers reported an increase in bullying and name-calling in classrooms across the country.

NPR reports on a new study in Virginia, published by the American Educational Research Association, that now supports those stories.

Using data from a school climate survey involving over 150,000 students across Virginia, Francis Huang of the University of Missouri and Dewey Cornell of the University of Virginia compared responses from 2015 and 2017.

The researchers found increased reports of bullying in the 2017 responses in areas where Donald Trump won more votes over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

In the areas where voters favored Trump, middle school children reported bullying rates 18% higher than in areas where Clinton had been favored.

Those same students were found to be 9% more likely to report teasing or name-calling based on ethnicity or race.

Looking back at the 2015 responses, before the presidential election, the data reportedly showed “no meaningful difference.”

A psychology professor at the University of Florida, Dorothy Espelage, whose work focuses on school safety and bullying in middle and high schools, wasn’t surprised by the study’s findings.

"Anybody that's in the schools is picking up on this," Espelage told NPR. "You don't have to be a psychologist or a sociologist to understand that if these conversations are happening on the TV and at the dinner table that these kids will take this perspective and they're going to play out in the schools."

Last September, non-profit group Youth Truth released a report that showed 33% of students say they had been bullied in the past year. That represented an increase from two years earlier when only one in four students reported being bullied.

That survey included over 160,000 students across 27 states.

(h/t NPR, American Educational Research Association)

Robert De Niro Worries About Gay Son Under Trump Administration

In a new interview with The Guardian’s David Smith, two-time Oscar winner Robert De Niro opens up about how the Trump administration’s divisive policies are worrisome for both him and his gay son.

“Yeah, I worry, and one of my kids is gay, and he worries about being treated a certain way,” says the 75-year-old actor. “We talk about it.”

De Niro, who has six mixed-race children, didn’t identify which of his four sons is gay.

He says initially he took a ‘wait and see’ position on a Trump presidency.

“When you see someone like [Trump] becoming president, I thought, well, OK, let’s see what he does – maybe he’ll change,” admits De Niro. “But he just got worse. It showed me that he is a real racist.” 

“I thought maybe as a New Yorker he understands the diversity in the city but he’s as bad as I thought he was before – and much worse,” he added. “It’s a shame. It’s a bad thing in this country.”

Asked by Smith if he believes Trump is a white supremacist, De Niro reportedly didn’t pause to answer, “Yes.”

Is Trump a fascist? De Niro says, “I guess that’s what it leads to.”

“If he had his way, we’d wind up in a very bad state in this country,” he continued. “I mean, the way I understand it, they laughed at Hitler. They all look funny. Hitler looked funny, Mussolini looked funny, other dictators and despots look funny.”

Since the 2016 presidential election, De Niro has become an outspoken critic of Trump. 

The Raging Bull star has called Trump a ‘scumbag’ and a ‘pig’ in the past.

And in June of 2018, during an appearance at the Tony Awards, De Niro received a standing ovation when he declared, “It’s no longer ‘Down with Trump,’ it’s ‘F*ck Trump.”



(h/t The Guardian)

Appeals Court Sides With Trump On Transgender Military Ban

Donald Trump has scored his first win in his fight to ban transgender people from the U.S. military as a federal appeals court ruled in his favor today, reports The Washington Post.

A panel of three judges in the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to overturn an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly which prohibited the implementation of the anti-trans policy.

It’s important to note that three other judges have ruled against the trans ban and those injunctions remain in place nationwide. And so, trans soldiers will continue to be able to serve in the U.S. military for now.

In fact, today’s ruling indicates the D.C. Circuit Court may have more to say about the ban later.

The five-page decision handed down today only addressed Kollar-Kotelly’s injunction saying she technically “made an erroneous finding that the Mattis Plan was not a new policy” because she failed to note certain nuances about the plan issued by former Defense Secretary James Mattis.

“The government took substantial steps to cure the procedural deficiencies the court identified in the enjoined 2017 Presidential Memorandum,” the order reads. “These included the creation of a panel of military and medical experts, the consideration of new evidence gleaned from the implementation of the policy on the service of transgender individuals instituted by then-Secretary of Defense Ash Carter (‘the Carter Policy’), and a reassessment of the priorities of the group that produced the Carter Policy.”

While Donald Trump’s July 2017 tweets were a blanket ban on transgender service members, the Mattis Plan would ban from service all transgender people who require or have already undergone gender transition, and bans people with current or recent gender dysphoria diagnosis.

Transgender advocates say gender dysphoria is a literally a defining characteristic of being transgender, and so the Mattis plan is still a full-fledged ban.

Under the Mattis proposal, trans soldiers currently in the U.S. military would be allowed to remain in service.

LGBTQ advocacy groups the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) quickly denounced the ruling in a joint statement.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating slap in the face to transgender service members who have proved their fitness to serve and their dedication to this country,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “We will keep fighting this cruel and irrational policy, which serves no purpose other than to weaken the military and punish transgender service members for their patriotism and service.”

“Today’s decision is based on the absurd idea that forcing transgender people to suppress who they are in order to serve is not a ban,” said GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi. “It ignores the reality of transgender people’s lives, with devastating consequences, and rests on a complete failure to understand who transgender people are. It is also destabilizing to the military to so dramatically reverse a policy that has been in place for over 2 years that senior military officials acknowledge has operated with no problems.”

A 2016 study by the RAND Corporation found that allowing the estimated 2,000-11,000 active-duty transgender troops to remain in the military would “have minimal impact on readiness and health care costs” for the Pentagon.

The research estimated health care costs for trans soldiers would cost only $2.4 million to $8.4 million a year, which represents a tiny 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in spending. 

Additionally, the study concluded there would be “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness” in the U.S. military should trans soldiers be allowed to continue serving.

(h/t Washington Post image via Flickr/photographer Ted Eytan)

Trump Administration Wants SCOTUS To Allow Trans Military Ban NOW

The Department of Justice has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service members to go into effect while waiting on SCOTUS to decide whether or not to even take the case up for review.

Apparently, the United States is in a state of emergency regarding the few thousand transgender people currently serving with honor in the U.S. military.

I know - it doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s go back a bit, shall we?

In July of 2017, President Trump surprised American military leaders and the world when he announced his plan to ban trans military service members after “consultation with my Generals and military experts” due to the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender service members. 

Remember, this is the guy who told Americans during the 2016 presidential campaign that he would ‘fight’ for the LGBTQ community. 


Conservatives loved the idea; Liberals and LGBTQ activists were outraged.

In the ensuing months, numerous injunctions were ordered by judges blocking the implementation of the policy, and for good reason.

Not only has The American Medical Association (AMA) issued a statement saying there is ‘no medically valid reason’ for banning transgender people from serving in the United States military, but all four service chiefs (Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force) have testified they’ve seen no negative effects from transgender military personnel serving the country they love.

According to a 2016 RAND Corporation study, there are an estimated 1,320 to 6,630 transgender individuals out of the 1.3 million service members on active duty.

That same study estimated the cost of health care coverage for transgender personnel could range from $2.4 million and $8.4 million a year, which is about one-fifth of what the Department of Defense spent on Viagra in 2014.

Then, earlier this month, Department of Justice Attorney Brinton Lucas told the D.C. Circuit Court that if the Trump policy were to be implemented, transgender troops would not be “discharged on the basis of their transgender status.” 

(Wait for it…)

But, they would have to identify as the biological sex assigned to them at birth meaning they would have to stop any transition-related medical treatment - treatment that every major medical association has deemed necessary and life-saving for trans people.

Then, over Thanksgiving weekend, the Trump administration bypassed the appeals court process and requested the Supreme Court review the case before the circuit level courts even issue their opinions.

This isn’t a very popular approach as SCOTUS doesn’t like to review a case before it has made its way through the lower courts. 

The high court likes to have cases work their way through traditional channels so they have the benefit of the opinions of lower court judges by the time cases reaches SCOTUS.

This week, the Trump administration filed emergency briefs asking the high court to allow the transgender ban to go into effect until SCOTUS can review the case in 2019.

According to Think Progress, the emergency briefs claimed waiting any longer to boot transgender military service members poses “too great a risk to military effectiveness and lethality” and it would be “contrary to the Nation’s interests.”

But such arguments have gained little traction in the past. 

For example, U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal ruled in September that “loss of unit cohesion” was the same argument used to keep Black people, women, and gay people from joining the military. 

“The military has repeatedly proven its capacity to adapt and grow stronger specifically by the inclusion of these individuals,” wrote Bernal as he dismissed claims that including trans people would generate any different outcome.

It’s worth noting that the emergency briefs filed this week object to numerous motions for discovery filed in the cases. It seems the Trump administration wants to claim that all documentation related to how the ban was developed would fall under executive privilege.

What they really mean is that if those documents came to light, the American public might discover that Vice President Pence (a known homophobe) and his virulently anti-LGBTQ friends were instrumental in pushing the new ban through.

Should the Supreme Court allow the policy to be implemented before the case reaches SCOTUS, thousands of transgender soldiers could be discharged for being who they are.

This short video from the New York Times introduces just a few of the trans soldiers who are at risk of being discharged.



The opinions expressed here represent the author and not those of Instinct or its contributors.

(h/t ThinkProgress, Daily Beast)

(image via Flickr/photographer Ted Eytan)

The View’s Latest Feud!

The View’s Latest Feud!

One Of The Co-Hosts Threatens To Call It Quits!

Welcome to The View! You should be familiar with the popular daytime talk show created by Barbara Walters where five women of different backgrounds get to sit among themselves and a viewing audience to discuss hot topics of politics, marriage, lifestyle, and so much more. It’s basically social media before there ever was one, you know, with people blabbing their opinion and trying to get their point across on a public platform. We’ve witnessed plenty of heated arguments on The View’s panel, including Rosie O’Donnell squaring off against Elisabeth Hasselback and all of the mess Star Jones brought to our screens. Frequent viewers of the show will know comedian, Joy Behar, and political commentator, Meghan McCain, have been brewing up a storm between one another that may have just touched down.

According to The Daily Mail, Behar is sick and tired of McCain and is threatening to leave the show. Which is a little odd, since after Walters left, The View is pretty much Behar’s show, along with EGOT Whoopi Goldberg. Their alleged feud comes shortly after McCain announced her solidarity with Behar when Kid Rock was filmed harassing the comedian, much to Behar’s chagrin. However, the women’s latest quarrel of the week came during the panel mourning the death of former President George H.W. Bush.  

Behar, per usual, relates the death of Bush to the harrows of reigning President Donald Trump. She talks about climate change, pollution, and how the Trump Administration is trying to allegedly unravel everything Bush and former President Barack Obama did. McCain chimes in, asking if Behar can honor Bush and not circle back to her hatred of the current administration. Check out the clip below:

If you’re a daily View watcher as I am, you know that on the televised version as Goldberg cuts to commercial interrupting their tiff, Behar slams her cue cards on her desk and points her finger at McCain. McCain, hard to back down from anything, does the exact same and the camera pans to the audience members who are seemingly enjoying watching their argument. This is where The Daily Mail’s exclusive behind-the-scenes sources tell what allegedly happened within minutes:

Producers muted Behar's microphone so that her expletives would not be heard on air. Behar threw her hands in the air, yelled 'My God!' and 'Get this b***h under control. If this s**t doesn't stop I'm quitting this damn show. I can't take this much more. I've tolerated a lot of s**t on this show but I'm at my wits' end with this entitled b***h. Enough already! Enough already! I'm not playing nice any longer,' Behar shouted, despite the studio audience being able to hear it all.

‘I don't know why she's so upset. I just wanted her to focus on President Bush and not bring Trump into this for once.' McCain reportedly said while hair and makeup people attempted to groom both of the hosts, producers tried to calm Behar down before returning from the commercial break.

The View is my second favorite daytime talk show behind The Wendy Williams Show, simply because it’s a variety of opinions that slam together. Since McCain has joined The View, ratings have increased and so have opinions, mostly against the late Senator John McCain’s daughter. The only reason I stick with the show is to watch the open-minded view of Goldberg and to listen what McCain has to say. I’m gay and mostly left-minded, but Behar absolutely does relate everything back to her hatred of Trump. Every single day, each conversation, she winds up making a dig at Trump. In recent months, the panel were discussing sex acts with Michael Avenatti, who grossly said he enjoys using handcuffs during intimacy. Behar perks up, claiming she wants to put handcuffs on Trump. Ha-ha, Joy. Listen, it’s not funny anymore and Behar is no longer a reason why I continue to watch, only why I roll my eyes. Still though, both of these ladies are necessary for the show to continue to succeed, but I would continue being an avid viewer with Behar’s seat empty.

Would you continue to watch The View without Joy Behar?

Wealthy Gay Couple Flip From Dem To GOP Depending On Who's In Charge

The New York Times has profiled Donald Trump supporters Bill White and his husband Bryan Eure.

The primary interest in the couple is that they are that rare breed of openly-gay Trumpers.

In fact, they are organizing a $5 million fund-raiser for the Trumpster this winter and boast about having Don Trump Jr. on speed dial.

But that wasn’t always the case.

For years they enjoyed being a part of Manhattan’s liberal elite. 

They supported both of Hillary Clinton’s bids for president quite whole-heartedly, paid Aretha Franklin to sing at their 2011 wedding, and even hosted President Obama at a high-end $39,500-a-plate fund-raiser at their townhouse in Manhattan’s uber-gay neighborhood, Chelsea.

But, per the New York Times, on election night November 8, 2016, while standing among the Hillary supporters in what everyone expected to be a celebration, White saw the writing on the wall in the election returns.

Without missing a beat, he jumped in his car and drove to the New York Hilton, where Trump was celebrating the surprise win.

“I didn’t want to be part of that misery pie; I’m not a wallower in self-pity,” White told the New York Times. “I really believe that once that decision is made, you have to get behind your president.”

Mr. Eure, a commercial insurance broker and a longtime Republican, was happy for the change of heart by his husband.

From that point on, it seems the duo have no problem explaining away any perceived negatives of the president.

When it comes to the many ways Trump’s administration has attacked or pared back LGBTQ protections, Eure waves off the accusations saying, “I don’t like identity politics.”

This from the man who is married to his husband only because of the progress made by liberal Democratic politicians and activists.

When someone brings up the many lies of Trump, despite actual facts and video tape to prove such falsehoods, Eure dismisses the issue as mere “embellishments.”

“Exaggerations,” White adds. “He’s the marketer in chief for the United States. So what?”

Their drinking of the Trump kool-aid has earned them the ire of former friends with whom the couple used to hob-nob among.

Even Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton says, “They ran to the other end of the spectrum and then walked off the ledge.” 

“Our democracy has been set on fire by this president, and they want what, an invite to Mar-a-Lago?” Merrill added.

In fact, access seems to be very important to White and Eure.




A post shared by Bryan Eure (@euregram) on


The Times articles recounts an episode earlier this year at Ralph Lauren’s Polo Bar in Midtown Manhattan where the two men couldn’t seem to get Chelsea Clinton’s attention across the room.

Incensed, White pulled out his phone and called Donald Trump Jr. According to White, Junior immediately offered to come right over.

Pleased with the answer, White explained, “Trump picks up on the first ring. If you want to get to Chelsea Clinton, you have to call through five people.”

Mr. Eure shares a story of the time he was traveling to Philadelphia to attend the former Secretary of State’s address at the Democratic National Convention.

As part of the story, he include the day’s inclement weather which forced him to ‘borrow’ a friend’s helicopter. But upon arriving, they rushed to greet Clinton only to be blocked by a campaign official.

“This was about because we didn’t write a $25,000 check,” Eure explains of the late campaign timing.

But the Clinton campaign remembers the story differently.

“Some people give their time and resources to causes and candidates for the right reasons, some don’t,” said Merrill. “No better indication of which case this is than to watch a guy decide to embrace Trump and all he stands for because he couldn’t get his picture taken one night.”

It’s worth noting that the Times piece almost glosses over the fact that White, a former president of the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in Manhattan, suddenly resigned from his position in 2008 and was forced to pay $1 million restitution after the state of New York had begun an investigation into whether he might have engaged in unlicensed commercial fund-raising. 

Along the way, White and Eure show little concern for the damage Donald Trump has done and will continue to do to the LGBTQ community

From removing all mention of LGBTQ people from the official White House website within hours of Trump taking office, to attempting to remove all transgender military service members, to the recent leaked memo that details plans to ‘redefine’ trans people out of existence, these two don’t care as long as they have their access.

Just to show how the couple flip-flops from power center to power center, here they are happy to pose with President Obama at the Broadway musical, Hamilton:




Last week with the President @barackobama at the @hamiltonmusical #POTUS  @billwhitenyc #fbf

A post shared by Bryan Eure (@euregram) on


Longtime LGBTQ activist and journalist Michelangelo Signorile chimed in on Twitter with his thoughts about the couple:



(h/t New York Times)

The opinions expressed here represent those of the author and not of Instinct nor any of its contributing writers.

Do You Date Outside Your Political Party?

Do You Date Outside Your Political Party? Can there be sex across political lines?

I’m a registered Democrat, but openly Libertarian and voted for Hillary Clinton. I see nonsense from all political parties, yet swing more left on most of the topics. In no way am I a Trump Supporter, but I can clearly understand why the Republican party, in particular, has been so popular in history and especially since more modern Republicans begin to evolve further from their traditional values. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with trying to see both sides of any argument. But when it comes to dating, should I be turned down for a date with someone because of my political affiliation, because I’m Libertarian? And on the flip side, should I deny someone because they are a Left or Right-Wing Radical?

Over my short life, I’ve witnessed the internet and social media take over the world. Everyone has an opinion – and your opinion doesn’t necessarily have to be tasteful, since there's likely another Keyboard Warrior who will come to your defense. Case in point: The Election. Ever since Donald Trump was miraculously elected into The White House, I’ve encountered countless anxieties on social media and in life. There still isn’t a day that passes when I’ll spot someone ranting to: “Delete me if you’re a Republican!” Granted, I’m using proper punctuation, a lack of emojis, and less aggressive language. During Thanksgiving 2017, I was scrolling through the socials and kept finding many posts about people proclaiming they screamed at Republican family members over the holiday weekend. Was this a little far-fetched? Our voices are much louder on social media than they are in reality. But because of these alleged heated interactions, I began to question ... Do politics make a person?

For me, I would be open to dating someone outside of my political circle and beliefs. I don’t think many would agree with me. I know at least a hundred people who wouldn’t even be kind to someone who is in a different political party from them. To be honest, I don’t believe I even know many gay Republicans anymore, but I’m still open to going on a date with anyone across the political spectrum, just as long as they aren’t trying to use our dinner to pull me over to their mindset like in a high-pressure timeshare sales meeting. I’ve made up my own neutral standing and love where I am at politically, as it has kept me sane since the 45th President has changed our lives.

Is dating someone within your political party important to you?  Well if you're interested in reaching out and you are blue in more ways than one, Trump Supporters have their own dating website.

This post is the opinion of this contributing writer to Instinct Magazine and was originally written in March of 2018.  Opinion pieces do not always reflect the stance of the magazine or the other contributing writers.