Dr. V's Magical Putter

[DukeNukeEm]

Sorry Balta, but the only one that seems to be pushing an agenda here is you, not Caleb Hannan.

Yup. Beware the social justice warrior..

[Balta1701]

I think Balta should just admit it has nothing to do with outing this person, and everything to do with possibly painting a gay/transgendered person in a negative light. That's the only reason this story is getting any kind of response. If she had cured cancer and still killed herself, there's no "omg! he outed her! that's so wrong!"

Um....bull.

[Jenksismyhero]

Um....bull.

 

 

Really? So when Gawker "outed" people like Anderson Cooper or Shepard Smith there was a huge uproar right?

[Balta1701]

Simmons and an ESPN writer who is also on the board of Directors for GLAAD have what are, in my opinion, very well done articles on the reaction to this piece posted today, including Simmons basically apologizing for the mistake of not understanding how the article would read to that community.

[iamshack]

Simmons and an ESPN writer who is also on the board of Directors for GLAAD have what are, in my opinion, very well done articles on the reaction to this piece posted today, including Simmons basically apologizing for the mistake of not understanding how the article would read to that community.

I think Simmons' piece is very-well done and I agree with just about all of it.

 

Christina Kahrl's piece, on the other hand, is a bit ridiculous. I'm trying to think about the relationship between the fact that Vanderbilt was a transgender person and the fact that that's also what threw Caleb Hannan off her scent. I find them almost inseparable and therefore necessary to the story. I said as much Saturday.

 

Do we, as a society, have a ways to go when it comes to accepting and learning to properly respect transgender people? Yes, absolutely. I think about the progress made with gay and lesbian folks and think about that same progress when it comes to transgender people.

 

On the other hand, this trend we also seem to have as a society to celebrate faux outrage and morality dick-measuring contests is also quite bothersome. We're all so quick to trip over each other in an attempt to see who can be the most morally or politically correct Mother Theresa, and that usually happens shortly after the first person stands up and begins imparting blame (as we saw in this case). Frankly, if it took 56 hours for someone to do so, and then turned into an all-out cascade of criticism, I find that pretty compelling evidence.

 

I shudder to think we may enter an age in publishing where a writer can't report an interesting story without fear of somehow offending someone for something.

Edited January 21, 2014 by iamshack

[Rowand44]

Great article.

[Rowand44]

I think Simmons' piece is very-well done and I agree with just about all of it.

 

Christina Kahrl's piece, on the other hand, is a bit ridiculous. I'm trying to think about the relationship between the fact that Vanderbilt was a transgender person and the fact that that's also what threw Caleb Hannan off her scent. I find them almost inseparable and therefore necessary to the story. I said as much Saturday.

 

Do we, as a society, have a ways to go when it comes to accepting and learning to properly respect transgender people? Yes, absolutely. I think about the progress made with gay and lesbian folks and think about that same progress when it comes to transgender people.

 

On the other hand, this trend we also seem to have as a society to celebrate faux outrage and morality dick-measuring contests is also quite bothersome. We're all so quick to trip over each other in an attempt to see who can be the most morally or politically correct Mother Theresa, and that usually happens shortly after the first person stands up and begins imparting blame (as we saw in this case). Frankly, if it took 56 hours for someone to do so, and then turned into an all-out cascade of criticism, I find that pretty compelling evidence.

 

I shudder to think we may enter an age in publishing where a writer can't report an interesting story without fear of somehow offending someone for something.

I love this post.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Frankly I think the extent Simmons went to apologize is a bit nauseating. 15 smart, intelligent, long-time editors/journalists peer-reviewed that piece, and not one of them thought of the 10 things he's apologizing for. That to me is a sign that this story is a non-story. It's a sign that a guy born out of the internet has clearly over-valued and over-estimated the internet.

 

Yeah, apologize for using the wrong pronoun. I can support that. Apologize for maybe not editing a few lines that make it seem like the guy is creeped out about a tranny (as if that's not a normal reaction for most people, regardless of the opinion of acceptability).

 

I still can't get behind not reporting the truth. If this is the standard, I don't know how reporters are supposed to do their jobs. They shouldn't care how the subject, especially a subject that voluntarily talked, might feel about it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[iamshack]

Frankly I think the extent Simmons went to apologize is a bit nauseating. 15 smart, intelligent, long-time editors/journalists peer-reviewed that piece, and not one of them thought of the 10 things he's apologizing for. That to me is a sign that this story is a non-story. It's a sign that a guy born out of the internet has clearly over-valued and over-estimated the internet.

 

Yeah, apologize for using the wrong pronoun. I can support that. Apologize for maybe not editing a few lines that make it seem like the guy is creeped out about a tranny (as if that's not a normal reaction for most people, regardless of the opinion of acceptability).

 

I still can't get behind not reporting the truth. If this is the standard, I don't know how reporters are supposed to do their jobs. They shouldn't care how the subject, especially a subject that voluntarily talked, might feel about it.

Well it was clearly damage control, but I think the biggest takeaway was that they should have allowed a transgendered person weigh in on it before publishing. I can support that criticism.

[farmteam]

Well it was clearly damage control, but I think the biggest takeaway was that they should have allowed a transgendered person weigh in on it before publishing. I can support that criticism.

Agreed. It was something Simmons/Grantland had to do, but he did a good job of clearly stating this was an error of omission, not an intentional hit piece.

[bmags]

I think Simmons' piece is very-well done and I agree with just about all of it.

 

Christina Kahrl's piece, on the other hand, is a bit ridiculous. I'm trying to think about the relationship between the fact that Vanderbilt was a transgender person and the fact that that's also what threw Caleb Hannan off her scent. I find them almost inseparable and therefore necessary to the story. I said as much Saturday.

 

Do we, as a society, have a ways to go when it comes to accepting and learning to properly respect transgender people? Yes, absolutely. I think about the progress made with gay and lesbian folks and think about that same progress when it comes to transgender people.

 

On the other hand, this trend we also seem to have as a society to celebrate faux outrage and morality dick-measuring contests is also quite bothersome. We're all so quick to trip over each other in an attempt to see who can be the most morally or politically correct Mother Theresa, and that usually happens shortly after the first person stands up and begins imparting blame (as we saw in this case). Frankly, if it took 56 hours for someone to do so, and then turned into an all-out cascade of criticism, I find that pretty compelling evidence.

 

I shudder to think we may enter an age in publishing where a writer can't report an interesting story without fear of somehow offending someone for something.

 

I disagree. I think Karhl's piece was very informative, but she made a mistake in how aggressive the first few paragraphs were (which may have turned you off). The last half of the article is very interesting in the history of transexual therapy and illuminates the issue well. If the advice you've heard once the transformation occurs is to start a new life, you can see how far the rabbit hole would go (especially if they have "conman" tendencies).

 

The piece was compelling but could draw you down the line of everything is connected. And I think the narrative kind of pushed this idea that gender was one more thing she was conning everyone on. To include the gender switch as an important part of the story to include, they needed really good execution and understanding which they did not do. I appreciated Simmons sincere and honest apology (not "I'm sorry if you were offended") and Kahrl's interesting piece.

[StrangeSox]

Frankly I think the extent Simmons went to apologize is a bit nauseating. 15 smart, intelligent, long-time editors/journalists peer-reviewed that piece, and not one of them thought of the 10 things he's apologizing for. That to me is a sign that this story is a non-story.

 

How many of those 15 people have any experience with or exposure to transsexualism such that they'd recognize the problems? In fact, Simmons explicitly makes this point:

 

Caleb’s biggest mistake? Outing Dr. V to one of her investors while she was still alive. I don’t think he understood the moral consequences of that decision, and frankly, neither did anyone working for Grantland. That misstep never occurred to me until I discussed it with Christina Kahrl yesterday. But that speaks to our collective ignorance about the issues facing the transgender community in general, as well as our biggest mistake: not educating ourselves on that front before seriously considering whether to run the piece.

[Steve9347]

"Oh no, a reporter is going to reveal that I'm transgendered. Oh look, a plastic bag."

 

No one else got that possibility as they were reading it, that having this part of her life revealed publicly against her wishes could push the person to that?

I didn't notice this thread on Soxtalk until now - and yes, reading the lengthly article, it seemed, to me, that she made one last plea for the writer to come see her proof and then squash the story, and he said hell no and she killed herself.

[Steve9347]

I think Balta should just admit it has nothing to do with outing this person, and everything to do with possibly painting a gay/transgendered person in a negative light. That's the only reason this story is getting any kind of response. If she had cured cancer and still killed herself, there's no "omg! he outed her! that's so wrong!"

Well, let's be honest, the author did out her to a business partner. That's f***ed up.

[Steve9347]

Frankly I think the extent Simmons went to apologize is a bit nauseating. 15 smart, intelligent, long-time editors/journalists peer-reviewed that piece, and not one of them thought of the 10 things he's apologizing for. That to me is a sign that this story is a non-story. It's a sign that a guy born out of the internet has clearly over-valued and over-estimated the internet.

 

Yeah, apologize for using the wrong pronoun. I can support that. Apologize for maybe not editing a few lines that make it seem like the guy is creeped out about a tranny (as if that's not a normal reaction for most people, regardless of the opinion of acceptability).

 

I still can't get behind not reporting the truth. If this is the standard, I don't know how reporters are supposed to do their jobs. They shouldn't care how the subject, especially a subject that voluntarily talked, might feel about it.

Yeah, Simmons' article was largely filled with bulls*** to end the discussion. That's fine, but 15 people did not review that article, because someone would have said "yo, this is f***ed up".

[Jake]

Outing her to the business partner was certainly the worst part -- luckily, we think (and I emphasize the uncertainty in this) that he seemed to have taken that information in stride. On the other hand, I almost feel that this is the most forgivable part. This was, like much of it, a person with good intentions doing something dumb out of ignorance. I can understand how Hannan didn't realize that he needed to out her lies to this businessperson without outing her transgender status. The more I think about it, the more I believe he could have convinced that guy that she was a fraud and that her name had been changed without making it clear that the former name was a male name.

 

Much of the rest happens in the same vein, but was largely preventable. Many of the contentious points in the article, while plausibly benign and presumably of benign intention, were not presented in a manner that befits contentious points. The article that went to print, ultimately, was careless. The gendered pronouns late in the article were not horrible -- Hannan never referred to Essay Vanderbilt as "he" -- but he could have simply added a footnote or parenthetical comment that he isn't sure if Essay would have felt referring to her previous identity as "he" was appropriate. This is another case of editorial failure, as well, since one would hope these details would be picked up by an editor. The AP style book has recommendations on this.

 

When the chills go up his spine, he could easily have made it clear that they weren't chills because "ew, it's not a girl!" but because this was the moment he realized Essay was a fraud. Instead, it is ambiguous. Why the hell didn't an editor do something about this? It would have been quite simple to clarify what exactly the significance of that moment was.

 

Overall, it is a very good thing that this article has triggered a productive conversation about trans issues among a demographic that doesn't normally entertain these things. Trans people are quite clearly invisible, as we see in the article, but the article has in effect made their issues visible. This isn't without negative effects, obviously, since Essay's dignity indubitably suffered posthumously and possibly, the prying drove her more quickly to her death. Many people will fortify transphobic positions. Many others, who have not ever thought about these things, will now think about them. Caleb Hannan never realized the significance of outing someone. Now all of us do. I think all of us now would be much more judicious with that kind of knowledge and that's a good thing.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Jake

[iamshack]

I am reading the points you guys are making, and I think they are understandable, but to me, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who creates this ridiculously mysterious past and then seems shocked when someone bothered to vet her. I am really trying to be understanding here, I am. I keep going back and putting this in the context of a gay/lesbian person being outed, maybe 20-30 years ago when that was less socially accepted, and trying to make the comparison. However, the distinction in my eyes, is that in the vast majority of times when a gay/lesbian was outed, there really was no relevancy between that person's sexual preferences and whatever activity or topic that was driving the story. In this case, we have a woman who essentially drove the mystery by creating a clandestine past which, let's be honest, is going to be like catnip to any journalist who enjoys the profession at all.

 

If maintaining the fact that one is a transgender person was of extreme importance to Vanderbilt, why not simply stand behind the science of the putter itself? Why not hire a physicist to prove up the science? Why claim that she worked on top secret DoD projects in an effort to create a legitimacy for the putter, knowing full-well that legitimacy would be vetted?

 

I can understand how it was wrong for the author to mention that Vanderbilt was a transgender person...but why is that transgression so terrible in light of what Vanderbilt did to the investor? I suppose that wasn't the author's decision to make here, but I have a difficult time finding sympathy for Vanderbilt when I feel that her crimes were at the very least, far worse than anything any of the other actors in this story did.

 

Again, I understand some of the criticisms here, I just have a difficult time finding sympathy for a person who essentially utilized her mysterious identity (and the very fact that most investigators/researchers aren't going to assume someone might be a transgender person) to her benefit in order to bolster the legitimacy of the product she was attempting to sell.

[Jake]

I am very hesitant to jump out and say that since Dr. V did some things very wrong, that she deserved harm beyond what those wrong things merited.

 

It is one thing to be outed as a liar and receive what comes from defrauding people of their money and time.

 

To be outed as a transgender person, in all likelihood, is unfathomably traumatizing. She likely lived much of her life in absolute turmoil about her identity. By all accounts, the outside world very much saw a young man. She felt like a young woman. If Dr. V was anything like most other transgendered people, being able to live as a woman was incredibly liberating on the most fundamental level. I cannot fathom how it must feel to finally feel like I am in the correct body after feeling as if I were in the wrong one for so long. Dr. V clearly wanted to get away from anyone associated with her past, which makes sense -- she doesn't want people tiptoeing around, trying to figure out pronouns and that sort of thing. She just wanted to be herself, a woman.

 

The consequences of being outed means all of that tumbling down. The brief moment in her life in which she was finally happy in her own skin getting interrupted by the very past she meant to disavow had to be incredibly unsettling. It is the most damaging invasion of privacy one can ever imagine.

 

We don't know how much this came to fruition before her death. Hannan outed her to that investor, but we aren't sure if that investor reacted. Hannan let Dr. V know that he knew, but he obviously didn't publish anything before her death. We simply don't know how seriously threatened she felt. Perhaps everyone in her personal life was finding out because of all this. Maybe not. She certainly had issues more complicated than "I will kill myself if I am outed." However, it very well could be that if she was maybe 25% of the way towards doing that, feeling as if she had been outed could easily be a significant enough moment to push her the rest of the way toward action.

 

She wasn't blameless. She probably deserved humiliation -- how humiliating it would have been for everyone to find out that she made up her credentials, talked all funny to sound like a scientist, tricked Gary McCord, sold a bunch of golf clubs on false pretenses -- but being unveiled in such a public way in regard to her gender identity is just so incredibly personal. I wish I could explain just how significant that is. That isn't to say that all trans people should or want to live in absolute secrecy -- this is clearly not the case -- but they have to handle that on their own terms.

 

You can obviously say that she walked herself into this. Lying about your identity in general certainly puts your gender identity at risk of being compromised. She even could have probably snuffed out Hannan earlier in the process, giving him no window to her in a significant way.

 

However, what do you say about a guy walking home alone at night that gets mugged? It's his fault? What about the mugger? Who do we blame?

 

If Martha Stewart got whacked by another inside trader, is that deserved? She played a dangerous game, maybe dangerous people could have come along. She increased her risk. That doesn't mean she deserved to be killed.

 

You can imagine all kinds of scenarios, but you get my point. Putting yourself at risk does not mean you deserve the worst possible outcome. Doing something wrong doesn't mean you should risk punishment beyond your transgression. There is an argument to be taken seriously here that Dr. V received a punishment, by being outed, that far exceeds her lies. Being Essay wasn't a lie, it was the only truth she had ever known. Dr. V was a lie and that is where we should focus our condemnation -- but we also need to take into account that Dr. V probably came about because of a person who spent her life struggling dearly for acceptance.

 

I've already talked about the article and how I don't think it is horrible, but it is important to recognize that trans people being outed shouldn't be a run of the mill thing to happen if you happen to not like them as a person.

[Balta1701]

I am reading the points you guys are making, and I think they are understandable, but to me, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who creates this ridiculously mysterious past and then seems shocked when someone bothered to vet her. I am really trying to be understanding here, I am. I keep going back and putting this in the context of a gay/lesbian person being outed, maybe 20-30 years ago when that was less socially accepted, and trying to make the comparison. However, the distinction in my eyes, is that in the vast majority of times when a gay/lesbian was outed, there really was no relevancy between that person's sexual preferences and whatever activity or topic that was driving the story. In this case, we have a woman who essentially drove the mystery by creating a clandestine past which, let's be honest, is going to be like catnip to any journalist who enjoys the profession at all.

 

If maintaining the fact that one is a transgender person was of extreme importance to Vanderbilt, why not simply stand behind the science of the putter itself? Why not hire a physicist to prove up the science? Why claim that she worked on top secret DoD projects in an effort to create a legitimacy for the putter, knowing full-well that legitimacy would be vetted?

 

I can understand how it was wrong for the author to mention that Vanderbilt was a transgender person...but why is that transgression so terrible in light of what Vanderbilt did to the investor? I suppose that wasn't the author's decision to make here, but I have a difficult time finding sympathy for Vanderbilt when I feel that her crimes were at the very least, far worse than anything any of the other actors in this story did.

 

Again, I understand some of the criticisms here, I just have a difficult time finding sympathy for a person who essentially utilized her mysterious identity (and the very fact that most investigators/researchers aren't going to assume someone might be a transgender person) to her benefit in order to bolster the legitimacy of the product she was attempting to sell.

Let's be fair here...as far as the article presented, the author did not seem to show interest in actually looking at the science of the putter itself. It was treated very tangentially in the article, and the article featured virtually no talking to anyone in the actual company or involved in the design, production, or promotion of the putter itself. The author never met with the main person in the story nor did he really seem to meet with anyone working on the product itself.

 

Based on the way that article was written...if Ms. Vanderbilt had offered additional details on the putter or the science, does it seem like the author would have been interested? Maybe he would have been, but the article itself doesn't show that at all.

 

He finds reasonable questions to ask about the background of the person, asks them, but in the process gets dropped a juicy personal detail and that becomes the #1 point of the article from that second on.

[Soxbadger]

If you dont want people prying into your public life, stay out of the public eye. Dr V could have done all of this without ever having to create "Dr V" as a persona.

 

So it cuts both ways, you cant want fame and anonymity it doesnt work that way. Are the reporters wrong for doing their job? That seems like an existential question that I cant answer for you.

 

I dont know, its not like they went down the street knocking on doors trying to find a transgender person.

[Steve9347]

I am very hesitant to jump out and say that since Dr. V did some things very wrong, that she deserved harm beyond what those wrong things merited.

 

It is one thing to be outed as a liar and receive what comes from defrauding people of their money and time.

 

To be outed as a transgender person, in all likelihood, is unfathomably traumatizing. She likely lived much of her life in absolute turmoil about her identity. By all accounts, the outside world very much saw a young man. She felt like a young woman. If Dr. V was anything like most other transgendered people, being able to live as a woman was incredibly liberating on the most fundamental level. I cannot fathom how it must feel to finally feel like I am in the correct body after feeling as if I were in the wrong one for so long. Dr. V clearly wanted to get away from anyone associated with her past, which makes sense -- she doesn't want people tiptoeing around, trying to figure out pronouns and that sort of thing. She just wanted to be herself, a woman.

 

The consequences of being outed means all of that tumbling down. The brief moment in her life in which she was finally happy in her own skin getting interrupted by the very past she meant to disavow had to be incredibly unsettling. It is the most damaging invasion of privacy one can ever imagine.

 

We don't know how much this came to fruition before her death. Hannan outed her to that investor, but we aren't sure if that investor reacted. Hannan let Dr. V know that he knew, but he obviously didn't publish anything before her death. We simply don't know how seriously threatened she felt. Perhaps everyone in her personal life was finding out because of all this. Maybe not. She certainly had issues more complicated than "I will kill myself if I am outed." However, it very well could be that if she was maybe 25% of the way towards doing that, feeling as if she had been outed could easily be a significant enough moment to push her the rest of the way toward action.

 

She wasn't blameless. She probably deserved humiliation -- how humiliating it would have been for everyone to find out that she made up her credentials, talked all funny to sound like a scientist, tricked Gary McCord, sold a bunch of golf clubs on false pretenses -- but being unveiled in such a public way in regard to her gender identity is just so incredibly personal. I wish I could explain just how significant that is. That isn't to say that all trans people should or want to live in absolute secrecy -- this is clearly not the case -- but they have to handle that on their own terms.

 

You can obviously say that she walked herself into this. Lying about your identity in general certainly puts your gender identity at risk of being compromised. She even could have probably snuffed out Hannan earlier in the process, giving him no window to her in a significant way.

 

However, what do you say about a guy walking home alone at night that gets mugged? It's his fault? What about the mugger? Who do we blame?

 

If Martha Stewart got whacked by another inside trader, is that deserved? She played a dangerous game, maybe dangerous people could have come along. She increased her risk. That doesn't mean she deserved to be killed.

 

You can imagine all kinds of scenarios, but you get my point. Putting yourself at risk does not mean you deserve the worst possible outcome. Doing something wrong doesn't mean you should risk punishment beyond your transgression. There is an argument to be taken seriously here that Dr. V received a punishment, by being outed, that far exceeds her lies. Being Essay wasn't a lie, it was the only truth she had ever known. Dr. V was a lie and that is where we should focus our condemnation -- but we also need to take into account that Dr. V probably came about because of a person who spent her life struggling dearly for acceptance.

 

I've already talked about the article and how I don't think it is horrible, but it is important to recognize that trans people being outed shouldn't be a run of the mill thing to happen if you happen to not like them as a person.

This is a fantastic post.

[Rowand44]

Let's be fair here...as far as the article presented, the author did not seem to show interest in actually looking at the science of the putter itself. It was treated very tangentially in the article, and the article featured virtually no talking to anyone in the actual company or involved in the design, production, or promotion of the putter itself. The author never met with the main person in the story nor did he really seem to meet with anyone working on the product itself.

 

Based on the way that article was written...if Ms. Vanderbilt had offered additional details on the putter or the science, does it seem like the author would have been interested? Maybe he would have been, but the article itself doesn't show that at all.

 

He finds reasonable questions to ask about the background of the person, asks them, but in the process gets dropped a juicy personal detail and that becomes the #1 point of the article from that second on.

He seemed very interested about the putter. I also think Dr. V's first email back to him basically saying "don't you dare look into who I am" peaked his curiousity.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Rowand44

[Jenksismyhero]

How many of those 15 people have any experience with or exposure to transsexualism such that they'd recognize the problems? In fact, Simmons explicitly makes this point:

 

To me that's more of a sign of people creating a problem versus it being an actual problem. As iamshack said previously, the story was fine for 2 days and then someone complained and the snowball to criticize began.

 

And what's funny is the criticism started as "outing" this person, and then it was improper pronoun usage, and then it was that the writer killed her, and then.... at some point people are just too f***ing sensitive in this country.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, let's be honest, the author did out her to a business partner. That's f***ed up.

 

Frankly I don't see a problem with that. That's the truth. And I don't remember since I read the story a few days ago, but wasn't it in the context of "hey btw did you know your business partner doesn't have the degrees/job history she said she did? Oh and speaking of the "she" part of that..." It's not like he called the guy up and said "that woman is a man, hold onto your balls!"

[Balta1701]

Frankly I don't see a problem with that. That's the truth. And I don't remember since I read the story a few days ago, but wasn't it in the context of "hey btw did you know your business partner doesn't have the degrees/job history she said she did? Oh and speaking of the "she" part of that..." It's not like he called the guy up and said "that woman is a man, hold onto your balls!"

Frankly, I'm not sure I see how those 2 versions of the outing are different in the least beyond your choice of more vulgar language in the 2nd. If the 2nd is inappropriate then so is the first.