Sports reporter to undergo sex change

This is where I'm coming from, too, and why I think this isn't a sports story. It's too deep for a quick, "Hey, I'm doing this thing. Just so ya know!"

If the story is worth doing, it should be written on its own merit, not merely because the guy works at the paper. And the whole "It belongs in the sports section" argument creates too much room to leave out important pieces, a crutch that provides the opportunity to ignore significant stuff because "Well, it IS just the sports section."

 

Here is a follow-up for Friday's paper: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-daniels27apr27,0,6730701.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 

Kudos to ZoeB and the others for explaining what they go through, and doing so despite the comments from the know it alls. ZoeB, one question: How can Australia, a country founded by convicts, lump you in with criminals and deny you a passport? Makes no sense half a world away.

 

I don't understand people thinking the wife should have been in the piece. It was a column. It was sort of a note to readers from a sports voice in the community. As a column, it was on his terms. It was what he was willing to talk about. It wasn't a news story. At the top it was labeled "first person."

That makes it different. He could have said, "personally this is a difficult situation" and I choose to leave my family (read: wife) out of it." Would that have made it better? A no comment within his own column? No. By leaving that stuff out, he made his statement.

He also did not say what kind of sex he likes, how he dresses, whether he plans to get a sex-change operation, etc. etc. etc. He did not talk to experts about the condition, how many people feel that way, etc etc ...

This column wasn't about those things. It was intended to answer "all the questions."

It was, as he stated in the column's nutgraph, his disclosure that he's a "transexual sportswriter."

That's what the column was about. In my opinion, to fault the column for being something it wasn't intended to be is odd.

It was what it was -- and that was a damn good column about an interesting topic. And it was tastefully and thoughtfully done.

 

FWIW there is usually little love lost between the two groups. The CD'ers have traditionally thought the TS's to be bonkers for self-mutilating. The TS's have traditionally thought the CD'ers to be guys who are weird paraphilliacs. The "Transgender" label includes totally different groups, often at odds with each other.
I am pleased and gratified at ADahlHouse's level of understanding of the TS situation. He's looking at it from the outside in, yet with some understanding too. I wish I could be as understanding of him in return, but despite being a "spy in the enemy camp" for so long, I still do not understand Men. All I can do is offer my unqualified good wishes to him, and thanks for his cogent explanation.

Yes, it's a bit of a cliche. The Airline pilot who in her previous incarnation got a Silver Star for nursing her A-10 home after a SAM hit, the former Airborne Ranger talking to the former member of the SAS, etc.
What better way to deal with your misery than charging a machine gun nest and making your death something useful? What better way of dealing with your inner demons than showing that your inner femininity does not mean weakness? We also tend to be good, very good, at military matters.

 

Well both.

The latter because he has basically a man's intentions going into a male locker room as a female now. Seems like it would tear him apart to what he wants.

 

A full explanation is over at my blog. Short version: good intentions gone astray through flawed implementation.

 

Your ignorance doesn't amuse me.

 

Congratulations, blondebomber.

"A posting on the website sportsjournalists.com also questioned The Times' handling of the revelation. The writer called the column "self important" and asked, "If he wants to unburden himself, the sports pages of the LA Times isn't [sic] the place to do it."

A nice followup. Good to know they turned down many interview requests. And Penner's upcoming online reports about the change . . . . hey, there's a place for that, just like there's a place for Alicia Parlette's great work.

But still no mention of the family/wife issues.

 

That's one TS's opinion. FWIW, some people believe "my way of being trans is better than your way of being trans," but the vast majority don't. Bottom line is that those who hate us don't bother asking where someone falls on the trans spectrum -- or their sexual orientation -- and the victims of hate crimes http://www.rememberingourdead.org/ include TSs and CDs alike.

 

What if they are no longer married? Do we know for certain that there hasn't already been a divorce?

 

No. Please let them alone.

The worst thing about Transition is the effect it has on our loved ones. The person they thought they knew and loved was an artificial construct. Of course they feel betrayed. Oh we, the transitioners, can argue that we were fooling ourselves too, and engage in justifications and excuses. Excuses that may even be true. But does it matter? I'm the woman who killed my wife's husband, in her eyes.

Please leave her alone. Let her overcome her grief - and that is very real even if they stay together, the old Mike is gone now. Christine had to slay him in order to live, justifiable homicide, but don't expect Mike's wife to like it.

We, the transitioners, are suddenly released from decades of torture. I genuinely cannot describe adequately how good it feels, not to have to struggle against Gender Dysphoria. Sure, it's terribly difficult for us, but at least we get to be ourselves. Free at Last, Free at Last, Thank God I'm Free at Last.

But our partners get nothing, they lose the one they love, and some... woman, some caricature takes his place. No wonder so many end up hating us! So please spare a thought for Christine's partner. Maybe they will stay together as a married couple. Or as sisters. Or they will split. But that's something they have to work out.