Dr. V's magical putter

YF, your potshots and utter disdain for the journalism profession are undermining some very good points about the treatment and perception of the transgender community.

 

The whole way this story is told, and the only reason it got published, is because there's a big, shocking, reveal at the end.

And, that reveal is that SHE'S A MAN, and she committed suicide when confronted with this information. And, we learn that this "mysterious" man/woman took the author on a wild ride while he pursued the story, what with her funny verbiage, crazy emails, and switchboard operators.

He treats her gender identity like it's the most shocking thing he's ever heard. I think he might have been less shocked had he learned she was a werewolf.

If the big reveal had been:

-- she's a lesbian

-- she's HIV Positive

-- she had an abortion

-- she's a Jew

We'd all rightly be offended by the story. We'd further be offended if he treated this information in a way that made it appear to be "freakish" and if he told others of it, in a cavalier manner, or for shock value.

But, that's what Caleb did.

Being transgender is not a lie. It's not a con. It shouldn't not be treated as shocking, or freakish.

 

It's not utter disdain, but, I'm ok if you or others think that.

Sometimes it needs to be pointed out. The reflex is to circle the wagons and defend. It's no worse than the "Blue Wall of Silence" or any other group that defends their own, at the detriment of others and/or the truth.

It's everything journalists should resist, and expose.

Journalists should look at stories objectively. But, somehow, everybody thought this story was terrific. For two days, people pushed this story as one of the best things to read.

How could so many people read it uncritically?

Why was the early criticism dismisses as unjustified? If the community that was offended wasn't a determined one, with little to lose, their voices may have been silenced.

Thankfully, they know that ignorance surrounding transgender issues leads to abuse, rape, suicide and murder.

The people on this board should know this better than others. We saw in real time how Mike Penner spiraled towards suicide. We read about Islan Nettles murder.

The media elite was ready to steamroll the transgender community, and got steamrolled.

And, I couldn't be more thrilled for them, and disappointed for your (former) profession.

 

Conjecture.

"The media elite" all conspired to retweet this story to crush the transgender community. Everything you feared is true.

 

The big reveal should have been that she was lying about herself, down to her very family affiliation, for financial benefit. Her being transgender is a fact that was inelegantly and inappropriately tied into that, but it does answer the question of who she was before she adopted the lies that mattered to her investors.

If she was biologically female since birth and did the same thing, lied about her education and last name and credentials for $100,000 of someone else's money, it's still a story. It's a huge story, at least in the context of the industry it's related to. I'm kind of astonished that some people don't think $60,000-$100,000 worth of fraud is worth writing a story about. What she did, and by that I mean everything except her gender, is incredibly newsworthy, and her trying to hide that fact by repeating "talk about the invention, not the inventor" is irrelevant.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't know if "off the record" was ever actually discussed here, right? We know she requested he keep the focus on the putter and not herself, but off the record is a very formal process and I think is probably irrelevant anyway given that he found the information via a public records search. She wanted to make her past off limits, but given that there was public record that indicated she was not who she said she was (and again, this is tied to the lying about the last name and education and credentials), it's very much ethically fair gain even if she didn't want it written about. George O'Leary probably didn't want his resume falsification written about either, in an example that is kind of apples to pears.

Trying to make this a very black/white decision of "this should have never been written" is ignoring the fact that she got more money than many of us will make in several years based on blatant, bold-faced lies. That's a story, no matter who does it.

 

We think that because the only time you show the slightest interest in journalism is to trash it. Unless I missed your contributions to the "best writing of [the year]" threads.

Also, what Smash said. Pretty much word for word.

 

The question someone raised earlier about whether any laws were broken intrigues me. I don't know the law on this. If I tell someone I'm an award-winning scientist when I'm not and he invests in my product, then I actually produce and sell said product (and get good reviews for it), is that illegal? Doesn't the investor have some obligation to do due diligence and check me out before throwing his money at me based solely on my word?

It would obviously be fraud if I took the money and ran, but I did not. I created the product and sold some of them. So is what I did illegal? Where does caveat emptor come into play?

 

Bubba, I'm asking a question not making a statement. I already said I don't know the law on this.

 

Remember, though, that we're in the minority and on the wrong side of history.

 

Two major questions for me are was Dr. V breaking the law and if she was still alive, could Dr. V file a suit against Grantland?

That is a major acid test for; can they file suit?

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

 

What's with the Dr. Z stuff? It's Dr. V.