Dr. V's magical putter

YF, you've frequently drawn attention to the media's treatment of transgenders. Do you think it indicates hypocrisy that their plight isn't accorded the attention and support that gays receive? Why. I'm as liberal as it gets on gay rights, but I'll be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about the overnight mainstreaming of gender reassignment. Is that hypocritical?

 

How dare these "outside observers" attack Grantland. What else could Hannan do?

And, don't forget, it was Hannan who was the victim:

Good, God.

Is there a profession more sensitive to outside criticism than journalism?

Journalists want to stand in judgement of other people and professions, but want no one to take a look at them -- and they don't like to look in the mirror wither.

And, what does it say about the kind of bubble sportswriters live under that none of the 13 editors at Grantland noticed any of the obvious problems with the piece, and neither did the scores of sports journalists who offered early praise?

 

I agree that Hannan is not a victim.

Why, specifically, is Dr. V a victim?

 

"Obvious problems" = "everything in the story is documentably true."

 

I think the push back against it, once it's been pointed out is a little strange.

I get that most people don't know anyone transgendered, and aren't familiar with the issues. It's a small community, and, by nature, and for their own safety, they would prefer their status to go unnoticed. SO, they don't have a lot of champions.

Though, I am surprised that Mike Penner's experience didn't make this board, and sportswriters in general more sensitive to the issue.

For me, transgendered folks are the ultimate underdog. They face real terror about their identity becoming known. They face the real fear of physical abuse, and even death.

The gay rights movement has become mainstream. Yes, it happened quickly, and we shouldn't forget the challenges they faced. But, now, they are in a position to stand up to A&E and Duck Dynasty. (And, even if they didn't truly win that battle, they were on even footing.) Gay marriage is becoming mainstream, and the folks who support "traditional values" are more likely to come under fire for their views than gays. (ANd, that's fine.)

What galls me more than anything is the folks who have claimed ignorance to Transgender issues, who stand by their views after being appraised of them, and then act like they are under attack.

I saw one prominent sports writer who had praised the piece complain that he was a supporter of LGBT rights/issues, and he was upset that people didn't respect his views, didn't want to hear his arguments, and did not see him as an ally.

Boo fucking hoo. You're not an ally if you don't support their issues. You thought you were a good, sympathetic, liberal. You just assumed that your "support" would be obvious, and would require no change in your own mindset.

And, lastly, these folks who feel under fire for not supporting Transgender issues, should think a little about how they demonized senior citizens and the very religious for not coming along on gay issues as fast as some others did.

You called these people evil. And, now you are in the same position, and want sympathy. You want people to listen to your views. You want them to understand that you are a good person -- you're on their side even -- when you don't support their issues.

It doesn't work that way, and it doesn't work that way because of how issues were handled in the past.

 

Are there not obvious problems? I thought we had broad agreement on this by now.

I also love some of the slow backpedaling on this. Folks who loved it now say, "it's not perfect" and point out that no article is. Oh, so you knew all along it wasn't perfect, huh? I mean, it was the best thing you read all month, and should be in the next addition of BASW, buy, yeah, obviously it had some flaws.

 

I also love how Caleb Hannan is being portrayed as some young kid, who should be excused for not knowing any better.

The guy is 31-years-old. He has been published numerous times. He went to college, and lives in a big city (Denver).

This is not some sheltered kid, from a small town.

 

I never loved or hated the article. It was nothing special, to me. But, as far as I can tell, it was true. Every word of it.

If you want to believe another side of the ethical debate, that's fine. But, if there's a flaw, which is debatable, it's in Grantland's ethics, not the reporting.

 

These are your readers.

 

Also, is it "being sensitive about criticism" if you're defending yourself against false accusations?

And, journalists shouldn't stand in judgment of anyone. If the truth causes others to stand in judgment, well, so be it.

 

I think it is very possible to evaluate transgender rights independently from gay rights or the rights of senior citizens. Ten years from now, I may come to the well-considered conclusion that gender reassignment is a perfectly normal, healthy undertaking. And if that occurs, I won't feel a shred of guilt or regret or shame about my current ambivalence. And I think this is consistent of me - for example, I was quite supportive of Rob Portman's change of heart on gay marriage, even as others lambasted him for failing the purity test.

 

I think some people might think reporting and writing are synonymous.