If you have begun transitioning and present yourself as the gender of your choice, i will be more than happy to use your favored pronouns to refer to you.
If you are making an effort to have your outside match your inside, we've got no problem.
When that is not the case, you are getting called what you look like.
So if somebody doesn't meet your personal gender role expectations, you're going to call them whatever you want.
That's an explicit declaration towards a given person, "You're not woman enough for me so I'm going to subtly remind you of that in our conversation."
Assumably this only applies to trans people. I'm guessing that if you meet a cisgendered woman who happens to be a tomboy - short hair, boy's clothes, etc. - you're not going to deliberately call her by male pronouns. Sometimes somebody just had a long day and wants be comfy in sweatpants sans makeup - whether they're transgendered or cisgendered - and just because somebody's having a lazy night or her girly clothes are in the laundry doesn't change her gender identity.
It doesn't cost you anything at all to use the pronouns somebody prefers. If you refuse to do that, all you're doing is putting them on edge for no benefit. Trans people get misgendered by accident quite often - if you do it once, then apologize and never do it again, most trans people won't get offended. But if you do it habitually and deliberately, you're just going to come across like a jerk and the trans person in question simply won't want to be around you.
If your goal is to simply not have any trans people in your life, this is an effective way to go about it.
I'm not talking about someone who doesn't have their makeup and hair done.
I'm talking about someone who doesn't even remotely look like what they claim saying i must call them what they claim.
I have never met a trans person who met that criteria, all have looked like their stated gender identity.
My statements are a reaction to the idea that objective reality is irrelevant and all that matters is how someone feels.
That is a bridge too far and i will not cross it.
How about you actually read up on transgender issues, the neurology studies that have been done and the like before you act like a shitheel and grand proclamer of "objective reality."
Because fun fact: Just ecause someone hasn't transitioned yet doesn't mean you get to veto their gender identity, nor do you get to be the goddamned arbiter of how they express it and make proclamations of what is or is not valid.
You don't get to decide what someone's identity is based on their exterior appearance.
Actually i do. Because in most states unless you start transitioning or get SRS, what you say doesn't mean anything.
Try to get your birth certificate or driver's license changed in most states without beginning to transition or getting SRS.
It's not going to happen.
Try to get married to someone of the opposite gender of yourself without transitioning or getting SRS in most states.
It's not going to happen.
What someone says is their gender identity doesn't count for much without a medical or legal professional backing it up.
I call you by what you are according to a defined legal standard or by what you present yourself as.
1. If you haven't started to transition you haven't met that legal standard. 2. If you don't try to look like your stated gender you aren't presenting.
That's "objective reality."
If you are in that rare category that doesn't fit under 1 or 2, i go by my eyes.
It does fall under "not being a silly goose" and "general empathy and compassion for other people", though. It doesn't harm you to call someone what they feel they should be called, so why not do it?
If you have begun transitioning and present yourself as the gender of your choice, i will be more than happy to use your favored pronouns to refer to you.
If you are making an effort to have your outside match your inside, we've got no problem.
When that is not the case, you are getting called what you look like.
So if somebody doesn't meet your personal gender role expectations, you're going to call them whatever you want.
That's an explicit declaration towards a given person, "You're not woman enough for me so I'm going to subtly remind you of that in our conversation."
Assumably this only applies to trans people. I'm guessing that if you meet a cisgendered woman who happens to be a tomboy - short hair, boy's clothes, etc. - you're not going to deliberately call her by male pronouns. Sometimes somebody just had a long day and wants be comfy in sweatpants sans makeup - whether they're transgendered or cisgendered - and just because somebody's having a lazy night or her girly clothes are in the laundry doesn't change her gender identity.
It doesn't cost you anything at all to use the pronouns somebody prefers. If you refuse to do that, all you're doing is putting them on edge for no benefit. Trans people get misgendered by accident quite often - if you do it once, then apologize and never do it again, most trans people won't get offended. But if you do it habitually and deliberately, you're just going to come across like a jerk and the trans person in question simply won't want to be around you.
If your goal is to simply not have any trans people in your life, this is an effective way to go about it.
I'm not talking about someone who doesn't have their makeup and hair done.
I'm talking about someone who doesn't even remotely look like what they claim saying i must call them what they claim.
I have never met a trans person who met that criteria, all have looked like their stated gender identity.
My statements are a reaction to the idea that objective reality is irrelevant and all that matters is how someone feels.
That is a bridge too far and i will not cross it.
How about you actually read up on transgender issues, the neurology studies that have been done and the like before you act like a shitheel and grand proclamer of "objective reality."
Because fun fact: Just ecause someone hasn't transitioned yet doesn't mean you get to veto their gender identity, nor do you get to be the goddamned arbiter of how they express it and make proclamations of what is or is not valid.
You don't get to decide what someone's identity is based on their exterior appearance.
Actually i do. Because in most states unless you start transitioning or get SRS, what you say doesn't mean anything.
Try to get your birth certificate or driver's license changed in most states without beginning to transition or getting SRS.
It's not going to happen.
Try to get married to someone of the opposite gender of yourself without transitioning or getting SRS in most states.
It's not going to happen.
What someone says is their gender identity doesn't count for much without a medical or legal professional backing it up.
I call you by what you are according to a defined legal standard or by what you present yourself as.
1. If you haven't started to transition you haven't met that legal standard. 2. If you don't try to look like your stated gender you aren't presenting.
That's "objective reality."
If you are in that rare category that doesn't fit under 1 or 2, i go by my eyes.
So a transwoman aware of her gender identity but has not been able to transition or whatever reasons is not worthy of being referred to by her actual gender in your view?
What about the fact that not all transwomen are "traditionally femme" Are you going to refuse to acknowledge the gender identity of a transwoman who's butch or tomboyish?
Why are you the great grand arbiter of a person's gender and not the person in question? Who the goddamn fuck are you to decide their gender identity contrary to their own perception of it.
You're being a collossal fucking arrogant asshole here.
+2
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited January 2014
Man, objective reality and legal fact are not even close to the same thing.
Not to mention legal standards being different among all states and also different among various state entities. DMV, social security, selective service, office of vital statistics, court system, and various private entities such as insurance or employers or schools all have different standards and different requirements. "Legal gender" is a fiction; there are legal genders which have differing requirements that vary greatly.
How is her previous gender at all related to the sale of putters?
It's relevant only insofar as it's a point of data showing that the claims of authority she's making are false. To show what she is not (PhD physicist from MIT who worked on stealth bombers or whateverthefuck), you must show what she is.
Once you're in that mode, there's really no way to protect the gender identity issue. It will come out.
BigJoeM your position is actively harmful to transpeople, who are, gasp, human beings just as worthy of respect and fair treatment as the rest of us.
If you learn nothing else I hope you learn this. I hope you might take this opportunity to reexamine your position or maybe do some further research about transgender identity.
One might ask, "So what sort of evidence is there that being transgender has some sort of biological origin, that indeed someone can be wired to be one gender, and physically another?"
Short answer: Lots. Here are 15 studies showing a biological origin of gender dysphoria.
1. "There is also evidence, albeit clinical, for a role of testosterone in the sexual differentiation of the human brain, in particular in inducing male gender role behavior and heterosexual orientation." - Julie Baker, Focus on Sexuality Research, 2014
2. "...We conclude that there is sufficient evidence that EDCs modify behavioral sexual dimorphism in children, presumably by interacting with the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis." Winneke et al, Environmental health perspectives, 2013
3. "Gender-dependent differentiation of the brain has been detected at every level of organization--morphological, neurochemical, and functional--and has been shown to be primarily controlled by sex differences in gonadal steroid hormone levels during perinatal development." Chung and Wilson, European Journal of Physiology, 2013
4. "Gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender), sexual orientation (hetero-, homo-, or bisexuality), pedophilia, and the risks for neuropsychiatric disorders are programmed into our brain during early development. There is no proof that postnatal social environment has any crucial effect on gender identity or sexual orientation." Swaab and Bao, Neuroscience in the 21st century, 2013
5. "Testosterone, estrogen and dihydrotestosterone are the main steroid hormones responsible for the organization and sexual differentiation of brain structures during early development." Serkan Karaismailoğlu; Ayşen Erdem, Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, 2013
6. "In human males, we show that variation in fetal testosterone (FT) predicts later local gray matter volume of specific brain regions in a direction that is congruent with sexual dimorphism observed in a large independent sample of age-matched males and females from the NIH Pediatric MRI Data Repository." Lombardo, et al., The Journal of Neuroscience, 2012
7. "Testosterone measured in infancy predicts subsequent sex-typed behavior in boys and in girls." Lamminmäki, et al., Hormones and Behavior, 2012
8. "The finger length ratio between the second and fourth digits in transgender men was significantly lower than in female controls in the right hand in this study. 2D : 4D showed a positive correlation with GIS score. Because 2D : 4D influences are assumed to be established in early life and to reflect testosterone exposure, our results suggest a relationship between GID-FtM and perinatal testosterone." Sasaki, Tsukamotoa, and Horie, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2012
9. "...growing evidence shows that testosterone exposure contributes similarly to the development of other human behaviors that show sex differences, including sexual orientation, core gender identity, and some, though not all, sex-related cognitive and personality characteristics." Hines, Annual review of neuroscience, 2011
10. "There is strong evidence that high concentrations of androgens lead to more male-typical behavior and that this also influences gender identity. "Jürgensen, et al., Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2010
11. "However, when the process of genital development and of brain sexual development does not match the same sex, females with a male brain and vice versa can arise. These transsexual people have problems with their gender identity and have the conviction of being born in the wrong body." Worrell, Master Thesis, Faculty of Medicine, Universiteit Utrecht, 2010
12. "In this study, more than 150 individuals with confirmed or suspected prenatal diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure reported moderate to severe feelings of gender dysphoria across the lifespan." Kerlin, Paper prepared for the International Behavioral Development Symposium, 2005
13. "Secondly, as predicted twin girls where one displayed gender dysphoria had a more masculine pattern of cerebral lateralization, than non-transgender girls. These findings support the notion of an influence of prenatal T on early brain organization in girls." Cohen-Bendahan; Buitelaar; van Goozen; and Cohen-Kettenis, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 2004
14. "It thus appears conceivable that due to local hormone dependent changes during development at least some areas of the brain may follow a different course than the genitals during the process of sexual differentiation. A partial or even complete brain-body sex reversal may eventually be the result." Kruijver, Dissertation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Amsterdam, 2004
15. "Results support the notion that the gender identity is related to the sex steroid-driven sexual differentiation of the brain, and that certain genetic variants of three of the genes critically involved in this process, may enhance the susceptibility for transsexualism." Landén, Doctoral Thesis, University of Gothenburg, 1999
The 15 studies listed above is a very small, partial list. V.S. Ramachandran has published a number of studies showing transgender individuals are wired to physically experience bodies of the opposite sex as well.
So grand arbiter, how does your "calls 'em like I sees 'em" mentality fit into that?
How is her previous gender at all related to the sale of putters?
It's relevant only insofar as it's a point of data showing that the claims of authority she's making are false. To show what she is not (PhD physicist from MIT who worked on stealth bombers or whateverthefuck), you must show what she is.
Once you're in that mode, there's really no way to protect the gender identity issue. It will come out.
What about her gender identity is inextricably linked to the fraud story, so that it should rise to relevance over say her favourite food or otherwise trivial aspect of her identity?
What is it that makes it impossible to disentangle from the rest of the story?
Man, objective reality and legal fact are not even close to the same thing.
Not to mention legal standards being different among all states and also different among various state entities. DMV, social security, selective service, office of vital statistics, court system, and various private entities such as insurance or employers or schools all have different standards and different requirements. "Legal gender" is a fiction; there are legal genders which have differing requirements that vary greatly.
not to mention outright discrimination in recognition of legal gender
TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill today that would have permitted people who underwent a clinical sex change procedure to amend their gender designation on their birth certificates.
Christie said changing a birth certificate would create opportunities for "fraud, deception and abuse, and should therefore be closely scrutinized and sparingly approved."
The matter is not dead, said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen), one of the bill's sponsors.
"Gov. Christie's veto suggests that with safeguards he would have signed this legislation," Huttle said. "I plan to work with my colleagues and the Governor's office to get this legislation done during the next session."
Since 1984, state law has required the Department of Health to issue new birth certificates to people who have undergone sex change surgery. But not every transgender person goes that route, with some choosing hormone therapy instead.
The bill, (A4097) would have applied to people who have undergone “clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on contemporary medical standards, or that the person has an intersex condition," according to the legislation.
Honestly I have no real problem with the facts in the article. It's obviously terrible how it ended up, but it was also on record that Dr. V attempted suicide before so her mental state clearly wasn't great even without this article. The real issue is the feeling of distaste that punctuates lines whenever the author brings up the transgender issue. He never comes out and gives an opinion, but it certainly read to me like he thought it was another problem in her past. That, to me, was the real issue with the article more than anything else.
How is her previous gender at all related to the sale of putters?
It's relevant only insofar as it's a point of data showing that the claims of authority she's making are false. To show what she is not (PhD physicist from MIT who worked on stealth bombers or whateverthefuck), you must show what she is.
Once you're in that mode, there's really no way to protect the gender identity issue. It will come out.
They previous gender very likely would.
That doesn't suddenly make it okay for this journalist to elect to be the goose to do so.
There is no part in the reporting of "This person's MIT credentials are false" that also requires "This person used to be a different gender." That someone else would probably eventually find out the latter is immaterial to the fact that this reporter decided to out them.
How is her previous gender at all related to the sale of putters?
It's relevant only insofar as it's a point of data showing that the claims of authority she's making are false. To show what she is not (PhD physicist from MIT who worked on stealth bombers or whateverthefuck), you must show what she is.
Once you're in that mode, there's really no way to protect the gender identity issue. It will come out.
They previous gender very likely would.
That doesn't suddenly make it okay for this journalist to elect to be the goose to do so.
There is no part in the reporting of "This person's MIT credentials are false" that also requires "This person used to be a different gender." That someone else would probably eventually find out the latter is immaterial to the fact that this reporter decided to out them.
To report the claim as false, you need to have details to discredit it. Otherwise, the reader (or subject) can just assume that they attended under another name, or some other such nonsense. To say "this person did not attend MIT" you first have to account for that person's time such that they could not have attended MIT. You couldn't attend MIT because you were working as an auto mechanic under another name (that also did not attend MIT). And while sure you could pussyfoot around the gender of that name, it's gonna come out, so at that point just write the story.
V made this an issue when she decided to commit fraud by making up details of her past, a past that could not stand up to scrutiny. She brought all of this on herself.
Honestly I have no real problem with the facts in the article. It's obviously terrible how it ended up, but it was also on record that Dr. V attempted suicide before so her mental state clearly wasn't great even without this article. The real issue is the feeling of distaste that punctuates lines whenever the author brings up the transgender issue. He never comes out and gives an opinion, but it certainly read to me like he thought it was another problem in her past. That, to me, was the real issue with the article more than anything else.
I would agree with this. Not a fan of the author at all, I do feel like to him the transgender bit is an issue in and of itself. But that's not necessarily relevant to the question at hand. If a completely trans-friendly reporter had gotten ahold of this, the same result may have come about, with merely a slightly different tone in the written piece.
What about her gender identity is inextricably linked to the fraud story, so that it should rise to relevance over say her favourite food or otherwise trivial aspect of her identity?
What is it that makes it impossible to disentangle from the rest of the story?
Other names you have lived under are inextricably linked to any claims you make about your past, such as credentials and experience. Those names are relevant to disproving any such claims.
Sure, he could have just been like "Steven" and left it at that, without further comment. Maybe that would have been better, and certainly would seem less like the author has an issue with trans folks. But regardless, the previous gender would have come out, because when people dig into your past to prove all your claims of authority are bullshit, they are *gasp* going to look into your past. DUH.
+1
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
...Are you folk serious?
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
You know what else can ruin both your professional and personal life?
Fraud. Completely lying to everybody you can about your credentials and past experience in order to sell things. This person had already ruined their own professional and personal life, this piece at most added slightly to that.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
Honestly I have no real problem with the facts in the article. It's obviously terrible how it ended up, but it was also on record that Dr. V attempted suicide before so her mental state clearly wasn't great even without this article. The real issue is the feeling of distaste that punctuates lines whenever the author brings up the transgender issue. He never comes out and gives an opinion, but it certainly read to me like he thought it was another problem in her past. That, to me, was the real issue with the article more than anything else.
I can understand how a line of reasoning might lead a journalist to revealing the subject's trans status in this case.
"I tried to research her educational history...
...and I found no educational history for this name at all...
...but a record of a name change, so I looked up the educational history for the old name...
...which happens to be a male name."
I can totally see a good argument for why that is relevant. In a kinder gentler world that might be an acceptable thing to publish.
But that's not our world. Outing somebody as trans who doesn't want to be outed can have catastrophic effects on that person's life. It can destroy them. Sometimes literally - trans people are 50% more likely to be murdered than cis gay or lesbian people in any given year, and have a lifetime risk of being murdered that is roughly 10 times higher than the general population (random blog link, but their reasoning is sound), not to mention their high suicide risk.
The "default rule" should be that a journalist should not out a trans person against their wishes. If there is some strong compelling reason to do so - for example, if their trans identity is relevant to a criminal past - then that decision shouldn't be treated lightly. It should be treated with sensitivity.
And I agree with you. The author admits to 'despising' his subject. But personal distaste, even for criminal deeds, is not sufficient reason to put somebody at higher risk of victimization or suicide. If the author is doing it just because they don't like the person, that's vindictive.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
I mean, I can totally see ways you could write the story so as to gloss over the trans issue (and that might at least personally absolve you of the "don't make it googleable" issue).
Largely meaningless, though, because somebody else is gonna go ahead and pick up where you left off, and finish with the details. If you don't want your past to become a story, don't make your past a story.
+1
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
Write about the fraudulent credentials. Details relating to her transition are completely irrelevant to the story being written about.
Honestly I have no real problem with the facts in the article. It's obviously terrible how it ended up, but it was also on record that Dr. V attempted suicide before so her mental state clearly wasn't great even without this article. The real issue is the feeling of distaste that punctuates lines whenever the author brings up the transgender issue. He never comes out and gives an opinion, but it certainly read to me like he thought it was another problem in her past. That, to me, was the real issue with the article more than anything else.
I can understand how a line of reasoning might lead a journalist to revealing the subject's trans status in this case.
"I tried to research her educational history...
...and I found no educational history for this name at all...
...but a record of a name change, so I looked up the educational history for the old name...
...which happens to be a male name."
I can totally see a good argument for why that is relevant. In a kinder gentler world that might be an acceptable thing to publish.
But that's not our world. Outing somebody as trans who doesn't want to be outed can have catastrophic effects on that person's life. It can destroy them. Sometimes literally - trans people are 50% more likely to be murdered than cis gay or lesbian people in any given year, and have a lifetime risk of being murdered that is roughly 10 times higher than the general population (random blog link, but their reasoning is sound), not to mention their high suicide risk.
The "default rule" should be that a journalist should not out a trans person against their wishes. If there is some strong compelling reason to do so - for example, if their trans identity is relevant to a criminal past - then that decision shouldn't be treated lightly. It should be treated with sensitivity.
And I agree with you. The author admits to 'despising' his subject. But personal distaste, even for criminal deeds, is not sufficient reason to put somebody at higher risk of victimization or suicide. If the author is doing it just because they don't like the person, that's vindictive.
I agree with most of this, to be clear. But unfortunately the details of past identities are going to be relevant to what appears to be a criminal present, so regardless of the authors motivations (I agree they were not pure) this was something that was bound to come out. If it weren't in his piece, it'd have been in somebody else's.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
I mean, I can totally see ways you could write the story so as to gloss over the trans issue (and that might at least personally absolve you of the "don't make it googleable" issue).
Largely meaningless, though, because somebody else is gonna go ahead and pick up where you left off, and finish with the details. If you don't want your past to become a story, don't make your past a story.
the question I guess is when does your past become part of the story? is it always true or only when the author feels like it?
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
I'm sorry
The integrity of the Sainted Putters is more important than the putting the life of a person of a minority constantly made the target of deprecation, social revulsion, bullying humor, and, oh, physical violence in the extreme trying desperately to keep their identity as a member of that at-risk minority a secret.
I am so sorry
I AM SORRY LOVERS OF PUTTERS, GOLF IN GENERAL AND INVESTING IN EITHER OF THESE THINGS
Honestly I have no real problem with the facts in the article. It's obviously terrible how it ended up, but it was also on record that Dr. V attempted suicide before so her mental state clearly wasn't great even without this article. The real issue is the feeling of distaste that punctuates lines whenever the author brings up the transgender issue. He never comes out and gives an opinion, but it certainly read to me like he thought it was another problem in her past. That, to me, was the real issue with the article more than anything else.
I can understand how a line of reasoning might lead a journalist to revealing the subject's trans status in this case.
"I tried to research her educational history...
...and I found no educational history for this name at all...
...but a record of a name change, so I looked up the educational history for the old name...
...which happens to be a male name."
I can totally see a good argument for why that is relevant. In a kinder gentler world that might be an acceptable thing to publish.
But that's not our world. Outing somebody as trans who doesn't want to be outed can have catastrophic effects on that person's life. It can destroy them. Sometimes literally - trans people are 50% more likely to be murdered than cis gay or lesbian people in any given year, and have a lifetime risk of being murdered that is roughly 10 times higher than the general population (random blog link, but their reasoning is sound), not to mention their high suicide risk.
The "default rule" should be that a journalist should not out a trans person against their wishes. If there is some strong compelling reason to do so - for example, if their trans identity is relevant to a criminal past - then that decision shouldn't be treated lightly. It should be treated with sensitivity.
And I agree with you. The author admits to 'despising' his subject. But personal distaste, even for criminal deeds, is not sufficient reason to put somebody at higher risk of victimization or suicide. If the author is doing it just because they don't like the person, that's vindictive.
I agree with most of this, to be clear. But unfortunately the details of past identities are going to be relevant to what appears to be a criminal present, so regardless of the authors motivations (I agree they were not pure) this was something that was bound to come out. If it weren't in his piece, it'd have been in somebody else's.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
Write about the fraudulent credentials. Details relating to her transition are completely irrelevant to the story being written about.
Let's keep in midn too that the fucker was outing her to interview subjects along the way.
We know already he outed her to the one investor. Who the fuck else did he out her to
Honestly I have no real problem with the facts in the article. It's obviously terrible how it ended up, but it was also on record that Dr. V attempted suicide before so her mental state clearly wasn't great even without this article. The real issue is the feeling of distaste that punctuates lines whenever the author brings up the transgender issue. He never comes out and gives an opinion, but it certainly read to me like he thought it was another problem in her past. That, to me, was the real issue with the article more than anything else.
I can understand how a line of reasoning might lead a journalist to revealing the subject's trans status in this case.
"I tried to research her educational history...
...and I found no educational history for this name at all...
...but a record of a name change, so I looked up the educational history for the old name...
...which happens to be a male name."
I can totally see a good argument for why that is relevant. In a kinder gentler world that might be an acceptable thing to publish.
But that's not our world. Outing somebody as trans who doesn't want to be outed can have catastrophic effects on that person's life. It can destroy them. Sometimes literally - trans people are 50% more likely to be murdered than cis gay or lesbian people in any given year, and have a lifetime risk of being murdered that is roughly 10 times higher than the general population (random blog link, but their reasoning is sound), not to mention their high suicide risk.
The "default rule" should be that a journalist should not out a trans person against their wishes. If there is some strong compelling reason to do so - for example, if their trans identity is relevant to a criminal past - then that decision shouldn't be treated lightly. It should be treated with sensitivity.
And I agree with you. The author admits to 'despising' his subject. But personal distaste, even for criminal deeds, is not sufficient reason to put somebody at higher risk of victimization or suicide. If the author is doing it just because they don't like the person, that's vindictive.
I agree with everything you've written here but have a question as a result. What is the author supposed to write about once he finds out that all the person's credentials are fraudulent and the reason why that person is impossible to trace. Just don't tell why? Say there's a reason but they aren't comfortable revealing it?
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
I mean, I can totally see ways you could write the story so as to gloss over the trans issue (and that might at least personally absolve you of the "don't make it googleable" issue).
Largely meaningless, though, because somebody else is gonna go ahead and pick up where you left off, and finish with the details. If you don't want your past to become a story, don't make your past a story.
This is impossible for any trans individual who has any possibility of being in a news story for any reason. Even positive news stories.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
I mean, I can totally see ways you could write the story so as to gloss over the trans issue (and that might at least personally absolve you of the "don't make it googleable" issue).
Largely meaningless, though, because somebody else is gonna go ahead and pick up where you left off, and finish with the details. If you don't want your past to become a story, don't make your past a story.
the question I guess is when does your past become part of the story? is it always true or only when the author feels like it?
and does it always have to be your entire past?
I mean, in this case, her past became part of the story because she was using her past to sell the golf club. I have no idea why this author decided to investigate it in the first place, but he did. And she very much used her fraudulent credentials as part of her sales pitch.
0
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
You know what else can ruin both your professional and personal life?
Fraud. Completely lying to everybody you can about your credentials and past experience in order to sell things. This person had already ruined their own professional and personal life, this piece at most added slightly to that.
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
It's alright that the journalist put her in a position which vastly increases her suicide risk and chance of being murdered because she misrepresented herself to investors? You got a weird set of priorities.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
Write about the fraudulent credentials. Details relating to her transition are completely irrelevant to the story being written about.
More specifically tho.
Like would just gloss over or leave out entirely? Just say that you had proof?
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
I'm sorry
The integrity of the Sainted Putters is more important than the putting the life of a person of a minority constantly made the target of deprecation, social revulsion, bullying humor, and, oh, physical violence in the extreme trying desperately to keep their identity as a member of that at-risk minority a secret.
I am so sorry
I AM SORRY LOVERS OF PUTTERS, GOLF IN GENERAL AND INVESTING IN EITHER OF THESE THINGS
Christ what was I thinking.
1) The subject of the article was dead months before it was published. There's no way of knowing if she killed herself for being exposed as a fraud or being outed as trans. Probably some combination of both, which is where this whole thing gets icky from an ethics/morals standpoint.
2) Good job completely missing the point of what mcdermott said.
a5ehren on
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
What about her gender identity is inextricably linked to the fraud story, so that it should rise to relevance over say her favourite food or otherwise trivial aspect of her identity?
What is it that makes it impossible to disentangle from the rest of the story?
Other names you have lived under are inextricably linked to any claims you make about your past, such as credentials and experience. Those names are relevant to disproving any such claims.
Sure, he could have just been like "Steven" and left it at that, without further comment. Maybe that would have been better, and certainly would seem less like the author has an issue with trans folks. But regardless, the previous gender would have come out, because when people dig into your past to prove all your claims of authority are bullshit, they are *gasp* going to look into your past. DUH.
Could've used just the last name. But it doesn't seem all that relevant to even give the name as I think she changed her name legally and there is no indication that she had done anything criminal or of note in earlier years. She didn't earn those credentials or have that experience under another name, so it seems not all that important to mention it.
Sure if would have come out to the journalist, but if he hadn't mentioned it in his article no one would've found out about it. This person did not commit massive fraud, it's not big news and there is little reason to assume others would dig deep just to find out the person's gender.
+1
Options
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
Write about the fraudulent credentials. Details relating to her transition are completely irrelevant to the story being written about.
More specifically tho.
Like would just gloss over or leave out entirely? Just say that you had proof?
Use her chosen name, say that she worked as a mechanic under a different name (No reason to actually bring up the name, if charges are filed it'll come up in discovery) and that MIT cannot back up her claimed credentials under either name. Bam, you've just illustrated her fraud while also not mentioning that she transitioned.
How is her previous gender at all related to the sale of putters?
It's relevant only insofar as it's a point of data showing that the claims of authority she's making are false. To show what she is not (PhD physicist from MIT who worked on stealth bombers or whateverthefuck), you must show what she is.
Once you're in that mode, there's really no way to protect the gender identity issue. It will come out.
They previous gender very likely would.
That doesn't suddenly make it okay for this journalist to elect to be the goose to do so.
There is no part in the reporting of "This person's MIT credentials are false" that also requires "This person used to be a different gender." That someone else would probably eventually find out the latter is immaterial to the fact that this reporter decided to out them.
To report the claim as false, you need to have details to discredit it. Otherwise, the reader (or subject) can just assume that they attended under another name, or some other such nonsense. To say "this person did not attend MIT" you first have to account for that person's time such that they could not have attended MIT. You couldn't attend MIT because you were working as an auto mechanic under another name (that also did not attend MIT). And while sure you could pussyfoot around the gender of that name, it's gonna come out, so at that point just write the story.
V made this an issue when she decided to commit fraud by making up details of her past, a past that could not stand up to scrutiny. She brought all of this on herself.
"MIT has no record of Dr. V ever attending their institution under her name or any other."
Honestly I have no real problem with the facts in the article. It's obviously terrible how it ended up, but it was also on record that Dr. V attempted suicide before so her mental state clearly wasn't great even without this article. The real issue is the feeling of distaste that punctuates lines whenever the author brings up the transgender issue. He never comes out and gives an opinion, but it certainly read to me like he thought it was another problem in her past. That, to me, was the real issue with the article more than anything else.
I can understand how a line of reasoning might lead a journalist to revealing the subject's trans status in this case.
"I tried to research her educational history...
...and I found no educational history for this name at all...
...but a record of a name change, so I looked up the educational history for the old name...
...which happens to be a male name."
I can totally see a good argument for why that is relevant. In a kinder gentler world that might be an acceptable thing to publish.
But that's not our world. Outing somebody as trans who doesn't want to be outed can have catastrophic effects on that person's life. It can destroy them. Sometimes literally - trans people are 50% more likely to be murdered than cis gay or lesbian people in any given year, and have a lifetime risk of being murdered that is roughly 10 times higher than the general population (random blog link, but their reasoning is sound), not to mention their high suicide risk.
The "default rule" should be that a journalist should not out a trans person against their wishes. If there is some strong compelling reason to do so - for example, if their trans identity is relevant to a criminal past - then that decision shouldn't be treated lightly. It should be treated with sensitivity.
And I agree with you. The author admits to 'despising' his subject. But personal distaste, even for criminal deeds, is not sufficient reason to put somebody at higher risk of victimization or suicide. If the author is doing it just because they don't like the person, that's vindictive.
I agree with everything you've written here but have a question as a result. What is the author supposed to write about once he finds out that all the person's credentials are fraudulent and the reason why that person is impossible to trace. Just don't tell why? Say there's a reason but they aren't comfortable revealing it?
I'm missing what the difference is between "No record of Doctor V ever attending x, y or z could be found after an exhaustive search" and "No record of Doctor V or TRANSMAN MCTRANSINGTON ever attending x, y or z could be found after an exhaustive search."
The only person to offer up the "Well I had a different name then" defense is the person who doesn't want it to come up so you don't have to worry about it.
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
I'm sorry
The integrity of the Sainted Putters is more important than the putting the life of a person of a minority constantly made the target of deprecation, social revulsion, bullying humor, and, oh, physical violence in the extreme trying desperately to keep their identity as a member of that at-risk minority a secret.
I am so sorry
I AM SORRY LOVERS OF PUTTERS, GOLF IN GENERAL AND INVESTING IN EITHER OF THESE THINGS
Christ what was I thinking.
1) The subject of the article was dead months before it was published. There's no way of knowing if she killed herself for being exposed as a fraud or being outed as trans. Probably some combination of both, which is where this whole thing gets icky from an ethics/morals standpoint.
2) Good job completely missing the point of what mcdermott said.
Transwoman, member of a minority with strong correlating relationship with suicide because of society targeting it with vast amounts of hate, scorn and derision, with a history of suicide, telling the author that if he went through with publishing the piece that he'd be committing a hate crime.
Pretty goddamn sure it was because she was frightened of being outed as transgender.
Also no I'm pretty sure I got his point. I feel that the life of a member of a minority frequently a target of abuse is more important than bullshit about a goddamn putter.
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
I'm sorry
The integrity of the Sainted Putters is more important than the putting the life of a person of a minority constantly made the target of deprecation, social revulsion, bullying humor, and, oh, physical violence in the extreme trying desperately to keep their identity as a member of that at-risk minority a secret.
I am so sorry
I AM SORRY LOVERS OF PUTTERS, GOLF IN GENERAL AND INVESTING IN EITHER OF THESE THINGS
Christ what was I thinking.
1) The subject of the article was dead months before it was published. There's no way of knowing if she killed herself for being exposed as a fraud or being outed as trans. Probably some combination of both, which is where this whole thing gets icky from an ethics/morals standpoint.
2) Good job completely missing the point of what mcdermott said.
Transwoman, member of a minority with strong correlating relationship with suicide because of society targeting it with vast amounts of hate, scorn and derision, with a history of suicide, telling the author that if he went through with publishing the piece that he'd be committing a hate crime.
Pretty goddamn sure it was because she was frightened of being outed as transgender.
Also no I'm pretty sure I got his point. I feel that the life of a member of a minority frequently a target of abuse is more important than bullshit about a goddamn putter.
So fraud is of no concern to you if it involves a member of a minority?
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
I'm sorry
The integrity of the Sainted Putters is more important than the putting the life of a person of a minority constantly made the target of deprecation, social revulsion, bullying humor, and, oh, physical violence in the extreme trying desperately to keep their identity as a member of that at-risk minority a secret.
I am so sorry
I AM SORRY LOVERS OF PUTTERS, GOLF IN GENERAL AND INVESTING IN EITHER OF THESE THINGS
Christ what was I thinking.
1) The subject of the article was dead months before it was published. There's no way of knowing if she killed herself for being exposed as a fraud or being outed as trans. Probably some combination of both, which is where this whole thing gets icky from an ethics/morals standpoint.
2) Good job completely missing the point of what mcdermott said.
Transwoman, member of a minority with strong correlating relationship with suicide because of society targeting it with vast amounts of hate, scorn and derision, with a history of suicide, telling the author that if he went through with publishing the piece that he'd be committing a hate crime.
Pretty goddamn sure it was because she was frightened of being outed as transgender.
Also no I'm pretty sure I got his point. I feel that the life of a member of a minority frequently a target of abuse is more important than bullshit about a goddamn putter.
So fraud is of no concern to you if it involves a member of a minority?
So you think fraud and being transgendered are intrinsically linked?
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
I'm sorry
The integrity of the Sainted Putters is more important than the putting the life of a person of a minority constantly made the target of deprecation, social revulsion, bullying humor, and, oh, physical violence in the extreme trying desperately to keep their identity as a member of that at-risk minority a secret.
I am so sorry
I AM SORRY LOVERS OF PUTTERS, GOLF IN GENERAL AND INVESTING IN EITHER OF THESE THINGS
Christ what was I thinking.
1) The subject of the article was dead months before it was published. There's no way of knowing if she killed herself for being exposed as a fraud or being outed as trans. Probably some combination of both, which is where this whole thing gets icky from an ethics/morals standpoint.
2) Good job completely missing the point of what mcdermott said.
Transwoman, member of a minority with strong correlating relationship with suicide because of society targeting it with vast amounts of hate, scorn and derision, with a history of suicide, telling the author that if he went through with publishing the piece that he'd be committing a hate crime.
Pretty goddamn sure it was because she was frightened of being outed as transgender.
Also no I'm pretty sure I got his point. I feel that the life of a member of a minority frequently a target of abuse is more important than bullshit about a goddamn putter.
So fraud is of no concern to you if it involves a member of a minority?
Make me a goddamn case about why this story was so important that a person had to die because of it. Especially with the "Look at the trans person! So strange!" nature of it.
From a journalistic perspective, I honestly can't fucking see it.
Why the fuck was this worth someone's life.
who the fuck did she hurt that made it worth this.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
You know what else can ruin both your professional and personal life?
Fraud. Completely lying to everybody you can about your credentials and past experience in order to sell things. This person had already ruined their own professional and personal life, this piece at most added slightly to that.
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
It's alright that the journalist put her in a position which vastly increases her suicide risk and chance of being murdered because she misrepresented herself to investors? You got a weird set of priorities.
I have a lot of sympathy for trans issues. I realize this is a problem, and don't think that a person should be outed against their will.
Here's the problem with a lot of claims in this thread.
Being sent to prison vastly increases the risk of homicide and suicide as well. Does that mean a journalist is irresponsible in revealing fraud because it puts the fraudster in prison?
It's not uncommon for people - completely independent of gender issues - to commit or attempt suicide when revealed as frauds. Does that mean a journalist is irresponsible in revealing fraud because it may push the fraudster to suicide?
Had Dr. V not made claims about her own past and simply offered the club on its own merits, or had she merely solicited the opinions of real experts, there is a good chance her past would never have come up. It was her claims, that she made, about her past, that lead to the truth about her past being revealed. She chose to make those claims, and in doing so put this journalist in a position where he could not credibly do his job without revealing that fraud.
Had this journalist simply made the claims of fraud, it's almost certain that someone - either continuing with this story, or in the civil / criminal suit, would have revealed the fact that Dr. V had a different identity in the past. This is an inevitability. No self respecting journalist would sign an NDA like this, and in almost any other case even the suggestion would be laughed off.
Dr. V has a history of suicide attempts, was committing a crime that likely would have resulted in significant lawsuits and prison time. While I have no doubt that being outed played a factor, I think assigning the blame to the journalist who was preparing to publish a story about significant fraud is foolish.
Posts
It does fall under "not being a silly goose" and "general empathy and compassion for other people", though. It doesn't harm you to call someone what they feel they should be called, so why not do it?
So a transwoman aware of her gender identity but has not been able to transition or whatever reasons is not worthy of being referred to by her actual gender in your view?
What about the fact that not all transwomen are "traditionally femme" Are you going to refuse to acknowledge the gender identity of a transwoman who's butch or tomboyish?
Why are you the great grand arbiter of a person's gender and not the person in question? Who the goddamn fuck are you to decide their gender identity contrary to their own perception of it.
You're being a collossal fucking arrogant asshole here.
Not to mention legal standards being different among all states and also different among various state entities. DMV, social security, selective service, office of vital statistics, court system, and various private entities such as insurance or employers or schools all have different standards and different requirements. "Legal gender" is a fiction; there are legal genders which have differing requirements that vary greatly.
Why not?
or
Why is objective reality more important?
It's relevant only insofar as it's a point of data showing that the claims of authority she's making are false. To show what she is not (PhD physicist from MIT who worked on stealth bombers or whateverthefuck), you must show what she is.
Once you're in that mode, there's really no way to protect the gender identity issue. It will come out.
If you learn nothing else I hope you learn this. I hope you might take this opportunity to reexamine your position or maybe do some further research about transgender identity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/how-much-evidence-does-it_b_4616722.html
So grand arbiter, how does your "calls 'em like I sees 'em" mentality fit into that?
What about her gender identity is inextricably linked to the fraud story, so that it should rise to relevance over say her favourite food or otherwise trivial aspect of her identity?
What is it that makes it impossible to disentangle from the rest of the story?
not to mention outright discrimination in recognition of legal gender
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/chris_christie_vetoes_bill_allowing_transgender_people_to_get_new_birth_certificates.html
They previous gender very likely would.
That doesn't suddenly make it okay for this journalist to elect to be the goose to do so.
There is no part in the reporting of "This person's MIT credentials are false" that also requires "This person used to be a different gender." That someone else would probably eventually find out the latter is immaterial to the fact that this reporter decided to out them.
To report the claim as false, you need to have details to discredit it. Otherwise, the reader (or subject) can just assume that they attended under another name, or some other such nonsense. To say "this person did not attend MIT" you first have to account for that person's time such that they could not have attended MIT. You couldn't attend MIT because you were working as an auto mechanic under another name (that also did not attend MIT). And while sure you could pussyfoot around the gender of that name, it's gonna come out, so at that point just write the story.
V made this an issue when she decided to commit fraud by making up details of her past, a past that could not stand up to scrutiny. She brought all of this on herself.
I would agree with this. Not a fan of the author at all, I do feel like to him the transgender bit is an issue in and of itself. But that's not necessarily relevant to the question at hand. If a completely trans-friendly reporter had gotten ahold of this, the same result may have come about, with merely a slightly different tone in the written piece.
Other names you have lived under are inextricably linked to any claims you make about your past, such as credentials and experience. Those names are relevant to disproving any such claims.
Sure, he could have just been like "Steven" and left it at that, without further comment. Maybe that would have been better, and certainly would seem less like the author has an issue with trans folks. But regardless, the previous gender would have come out, because when people dig into your past to prove all your claims of authority are bullshit, they are *gasp* going to look into your past. DUH.
You don't out people as transgender. And you sure as fuck don't do it in a way that will enable people to fucking google that a person is a transperson. It is something that can ruin your professional, and personal life. Or even put you in physical danger or get you killed.
But but... the importance of Golf Club and investor integrity!
You know what else can ruin both your professional and personal life?
Fraud. Completely lying to everybody you can about your credentials and past experience in order to sell things. This person had already ruined their own professional and personal life, this piece at most added slightly to that.
Yes, let's not concern ourselves with fraud if it's in an industry we don't particularly care about. That seems sensible.
So how would you have handled the story? (really, I am curious about your perspective)
I can understand how a line of reasoning might lead a journalist to revealing the subject's trans status in this case.
"I tried to research her educational history...
...and I found no educational history for this name at all...
...but a record of a name change, so I looked up the educational history for the old name...
...which happens to be a male name."
I can totally see a good argument for why that is relevant. In a kinder gentler world that might be an acceptable thing to publish.
But that's not our world. Outing somebody as trans who doesn't want to be outed can have catastrophic effects on that person's life. It can destroy them. Sometimes literally - trans people are 50% more likely to be murdered than cis gay or lesbian people in any given year, and have a lifetime risk of being murdered that is roughly 10 times higher than the general population (random blog link, but their reasoning is sound), not to mention their high suicide risk.
The "default rule" should be that a journalist should not out a trans person against their wishes. If there is some strong compelling reason to do so - for example, if their trans identity is relevant to a criminal past - then that decision shouldn't be treated lightly. It should be treated with sensitivity.
And I agree with you. The author admits to 'despising' his subject. But personal distaste, even for criminal deeds, is not sufficient reason to put somebody at higher risk of victimization or suicide. If the author is doing it just because they don't like the person, that's vindictive.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I mean, I can totally see ways you could write the story so as to gloss over the trans issue (and that might at least personally absolve you of the "don't make it googleable" issue).
Largely meaningless, though, because somebody else is gonna go ahead and pick up where you left off, and finish with the details. If you don't want your past to become a story, don't make your past a story.
Write about the fraudulent credentials. Details relating to her transition are completely irrelevant to the story being written about.
I agree with most of this, to be clear. But unfortunately the details of past identities are going to be relevant to what appears to be a criminal present, so regardless of the authors motivations (I agree they were not pure) this was something that was bound to come out. If it weren't in his piece, it'd have been in somebody else's.
the question I guess is when does your past become part of the story? is it always true or only when the author feels like it?
and does it always have to be your entire past?
I'm sorry
The integrity of the Sainted Putters is more important than the putting the life of a person of a minority constantly made the target of deprecation, social revulsion, bullying humor, and, oh, physical violence in the extreme trying desperately to keep their identity as a member of that at-risk minority a secret.
I am so sorry
I AM SORRY LOVERS OF PUTTERS, GOLF IN GENERAL AND INVESTING IN EITHER OF THESE THINGS
Christ what was I thinking.
Let's keep in midn too that the fucker was outing her to interview subjects along the way.
We know already he outed her to the one investor. Who the fuck else did he out her to
I agree with everything you've written here but have a question as a result. What is the author supposed to write about once he finds out that all the person's credentials are fraudulent and the reason why that person is impossible to trace. Just don't tell why? Say there's a reason but they aren't comfortable revealing it?
This is impossible for any trans individual who has any possibility of being in a news story for any reason. Even positive news stories.
I mean, in this case, her past became part of the story because she was using her past to sell the golf club. I have no idea why this author decided to investigate it in the first place, but he did. And she very much used her fraudulent credentials as part of her sales pitch.
It's alright that the journalist put her in a position which vastly increases her suicide risk and chance of being murdered because she misrepresented herself to investors? You got a weird set of priorities.
More specifically tho.
Like would just gloss over or leave out entirely? Just say that you had proof?
1) The subject of the article was dead months before it was published. There's no way of knowing if she killed herself for being exposed as a fraud or being outed as trans. Probably some combination of both, which is where this whole thing gets icky from an ethics/morals standpoint.
2) Good job completely missing the point of what mcdermott said.
Could've used just the last name. But it doesn't seem all that relevant to even give the name as I think she changed her name legally and there is no indication that she had done anything criminal or of note in earlier years. She didn't earn those credentials or have that experience under another name, so it seems not all that important to mention it.
Sure if would have come out to the journalist, but if he hadn't mentioned it in his article no one would've found out about it. This person did not commit massive fraud, it's not big news and there is little reason to assume others would dig deep just to find out the person's gender.
Use her chosen name, say that she worked as a mechanic under a different name (No reason to actually bring up the name, if charges are filed it'll come up in discovery) and that MIT cannot back up her claimed credentials under either name. Bam, you've just illustrated her fraud while also not mentioning that she transitioned.
"MIT has no record of Dr. V ever attending their institution under her name or any other."
Bam.
Where do I pick up my pulitzer?
I'm missing what the difference is between "No record of Doctor V ever attending x, y or z could be found after an exhaustive search" and "No record of Doctor V or TRANSMAN MCTRANSINGTON ever attending x, y or z could be found after an exhaustive search."
The only person to offer up the "Well I had a different name then" defense is the person who doesn't want it to come up so you don't have to worry about it.
Transwoman, member of a minority with strong correlating relationship with suicide because of society targeting it with vast amounts of hate, scorn and derision, with a history of suicide, telling the author that if he went through with publishing the piece that he'd be committing a hate crime.
Pretty goddamn sure it was because she was frightened of being outed as transgender.
Also no I'm pretty sure I got his point. I feel that the life of a member of a minority frequently a target of abuse is more important than bullshit about a goddamn putter.
So fraud is of no concern to you if it involves a member of a minority?
So you think fraud and being transgendered are intrinsically linked?
Of course not.
So how about we not use any more strawmen.
Make me a goddamn case about why this story was so important that a person had to die because of it. Especially with the "Look at the trans person! So strange!" nature of it.
From a journalistic perspective, I honestly can't fucking see it.
Why the fuck was this worth someone's life.
who the fuck did she hurt that made it worth this.
I have a lot of sympathy for trans issues. I realize this is a problem, and don't think that a person should be outed against their will.
Here's the problem with a lot of claims in this thread.
Being sent to prison vastly increases the risk of homicide and suicide as well. Does that mean a journalist is irresponsible in revealing fraud because it puts the fraudster in prison?
It's not uncommon for people - completely independent of gender issues - to commit or attempt suicide when revealed as frauds. Does that mean a journalist is irresponsible in revealing fraud because it may push the fraudster to suicide?
Had Dr. V not made claims about her own past and simply offered the club on its own merits, or had she merely solicited the opinions of real experts, there is a good chance her past would never have come up. It was her claims, that she made, about her past, that lead to the truth about her past being revealed. She chose to make those claims, and in doing so put this journalist in a position where he could not credibly do his job without revealing that fraud.
Had this journalist simply made the claims of fraud, it's almost certain that someone - either continuing with this story, or in the civil / criminal suit, would have revealed the fact that Dr. V had a different identity in the past. This is an inevitability. No self respecting journalist would sign an NDA like this, and in almost any other case even the suggestion would be laughed off.
Dr. V has a history of suicide attempts, was committing a crime that likely would have resulted in significant lawsuits and prison time. While I have no doubt that being outed played a factor, I think assigning the blame to the journalist who was preparing to publish a story about significant fraud is foolish.