Sports reporter to undergo sex change

I have questions: Has Mike Penner's secret been a source of rumor and gossip at the LA Times for years? Have people always wondered about Penner? Has he acted masculine, or come off as effeminant (sp?)? Just curious.

 

Boom,
I think most of us would admit to the double standard. As Lisa's friend, I wish she could be left out of this. As a journalist, if I were assigned to do this or a similar story, I would be negligent if I didn't attempt to show the reader as many angles as possible, and of course that would include how the family might have been affected by the decision.

At this point, I'm very glad I'm just a friend. And that side of me wants to protect her, to let her and Christine work through their life in peace, without having to answer any nosy (but understandable) questions. Hypocrite I am, absolutely, at least with this story. Like JD said earlier, we're humans first. Sometimes we even act like it!

 

Gingerbread - that is a fair and honest answer to difficult situation. Thank you.

 

Unless there was something that couldn't readily be explained by distraction, then odds are there was no rumor of gossip -- or if there was, it was based around being gay almost certainly, since TS isn't exactly the first thing to pop into someone's head.

Likely, people who have known her for a great length of time have noted odd little things about her that don't "fit" -- but they would be the closest people to her. I've always had small, little quirks that I call "tells" -- sort of leakage to make the bargain I made with myself tolerable.

Almost certain to have been somewhat overcompensating regard masculinity. As noted earlier, its so common common among TS folks that we literally tell jokes about it. I was airborne, air assault, ranger qualified, for example -- and I went into EOD.

 

This debate over 'the wife' is borderline sadistic.

Certainly much will be written about this in the days/weeks ahead, and every story will include the line, 'Penner, who was/is married to LA Times reporter Lisa Dillman....' Can we accept, just for now, that things were 'not good'? That this has been extremely difficult? This isn't a major 'news' story that impacts the general public....there is no critical 'need to know,' other than Penner's wish to tell his readers about his life.

Yesterday's column was fairly necessary if Penner is going to continue working for the Times. Read today's story in his paper--he couldn't even get in the door to his office because the picture on his ID doesn't match his current appearance as a woman.

What wasn't necessary was a 5000 word feature on every detail...at least not now. Obviously, that's ahead. But yesterday's column was enough.

(And yes, I know I messed up the his/her stuff....sorry in advance.)

 

It is really nice that so many of the politically correct on here want to cleanse the story by leaving the wife and family, but unfortunately that is a part of the story -- and a big part at that.

I'm sure readers would view it much differently and view this he-she much differently if they knew the devastation he-she did to his-her family. The bottom line is -- he-she likely lied to his wife when they were married and now he-she is dragging her into his deviant lifestyle.

If he were John Q. Public figure, every one of these journalists in here would be trying to hammer these same points home.

And no, I don't believe you should be allowed to cross dress and go to work. If you have male plumbing, dress like a man and act like a man and vice versa.

I just re-read what Dysonance wrote about himself-herself and it is somewhat absurd that he-she is trying to lump his desire to cross dress -- on a part-time basis no less -- with those people who actually go through the operation or go through the operation because they are halfway there.

Dysonance you said religion is not based on reason, but faith. I'm sorry, but what you are describing, the fact that you enjoy wearing women's clothes, is not based on reason either.

 

zagoshe--I never understand why anyone responds to you on these threads, so I'll just say this, and then let you get back to boiling the oil: No one suggested 'leaving the wife and family' out of the story. There will be many subsequent stories about the wife and family. Yesterday there was just one column, and it was Penner's to write. No doubt there will be countless salacious details ahead to satisfy your giddy need to know.

 

Ask yourself this 21 -- If you were the editor of this writer and this were a column about, oh, I don't know, a very prominent male golfer --- would you or would you not send it back and tell the writer that there are far too many holes in the story, too many questions left out and to go back in fill in some of the blanks for people who want to know?

I know I would. I know my boss would. I know just about every person who takes this job seriously would.

So why does the writer get a pass simply because he is one of your colleagues?

 

Zagoshe, because the story is about herself/himself!! And the editors obviously let her/him write what he/she felt needed to be written to get the fact out there.

 

It doesn't matter who the story is about. If a story is incomplete -- or an editor can read it and say "there are too many questions lingering that need answered" then it needs to be sent back to the drawing board and re-written. That is what we do here in this business -- regardless of how emotionally attached we might be to said subject.

And the family is a part of the story. It is deceitful to set yourself up as some sort of hero for the delusionally and hopelessly politically correct in this world while trying to soften the backlash from those people who aren't so quick to buy every crackpot scheme and theory about people's lifestyle/orientation by leaving a big part of the story out of it.

Don't tell me you are trying to "protect" your family because if you really were, if you really gave a damn about the consequences, you wouldn't have come out in the first place.

And all of this is assuming this is going to be hard for the family -- it might not be. We might be leaping to conclusions -- but we don't know because the writer never answered any of these pertinent questions.

 

I mean, you think those editors DON'T see the long legs this story has (no pun intended, lmao). LA Times plans to give her a blog on the topic, according to today's story.

 

Your analogy is pointless--this was not a writer reporting about a third party. He was writing a personal column about himself. The equivalent would be the golfer writing an open letter to the public. In either case, many other reporters will fill in the blanks....as they should.