That’s not an outing; that’s a respectful acknowledgment of who she was. Not long ago, her status as a lesbian would have been used to prevent her from ever being an astronaut, or it’d have been omitted out of some strange form of respect, not wanting to soil her otherwise decent image. Thank Ellen the times are a changin’, sort of.
Aye, I got that. And I appreciate the perspective since you’re a respected member of this community and someone I’ve interacted with before, rather than just some random anonymous ranter on the internet. It widens my view, so to speak. Thanks again.
Didn’t Sally Ride want her obituary to acknowledge her longtime girlfriend? It is my recollection – and a quick Google confirms – that many of the articles about her death described Ride as coming out in her obituary.
After reading the article, my impression of it was ‘This transsexual was seriously crazy! Most of them are.’
It was possible to out Dr V as a conwoman and a transwoman with compassion. He admits that he knew she was troubled. Instead, I got the strong sense of pointing at other and mocking.
We keep talking about Dr. V’s “con.” I read this story before I read this thread, and I’ve read only the story, not the later stories about the story.
But she (whatever she was calling herself) really did design a golf club. And it’s apparently thought quite well of by some very reputable golfers. And I think it’s actually still available – at least when I read the story, you could go to a website and buy it.
She definitely exaggerated her credentials (actually, fabricated her credentials). But it’s not a “con” in the way the Liz Carmichael car described above was a con – there really was, and is, a golf club, which may or may notbe better than other golf clubs. Some golfers seem to think it is. And anyway, a lot of the stuff I see in ads for clubs seems to be pure mumbo-jumbo, so her club isn’t any worse than all the others in that respect.
Although it can be confusing to a casual reader, it’s considered the most polite and non-insulting form to assume that they were always transgender. A majority of transgender persons first were afflicted with their gender dysphoria under the age of 10. For pretty much all of my friends where I’ve spoken with them on the subject, barring one, this was the case.
Referring to the past history of a transgender person by their old gender may make sense from the standpoint of the reader. It can be awkward to read; I’m not delusional on that point. But since the author does not know when she identified as female, they should just use the current gender. Furthermore, it’s very painful to most transgender persons to hear their past life referred in terms of their old gender.
Generally the convention in a case where you identify the subject of a story as transgender, you go ahead and refer to their past in their current gender. Sometimes this is awkward (“When Sheila dragged her bloodied and beaten body out of the boys’ showers…”) but the hope is the reader understands what is meant.
And there really was a show at the heart of The Producers, but it was still a con. She was conning other people to get funding by selling a great story which was completely false.
Would you rather invest your money in a miracle club that was 1) designed by an engineer 2) with a PhD from MIT 3) who had worked on secret projects for the Department of Defense and 4) was a member of the Vanderbilt family with enough capital behind her to make it a success?
Or would you rather take a chance on one that was 1) invented by a former fleet service writer from Gilbert, Arizona who 2) had no background in engineering, design or golf, 3) had been fired from her last job and 4) refused to tell a court of law whether she had ever gone by another name?
ETA: While I haven’t changed my opinion since post #3, I will attempt to use proper gender references in the future.
I read the article a few days ago and I thought it was the strangest and most interesting sports story I’ve read in a long while. But I didn’t share it on Facebook or Twitter because I wondered if Vanderbilt’s TG status was being treated as a freak show, and while I didn’t see this reaction coming at all, I think people were responding to some of the same things that made me hesitate. And as it happens a friend of mine had gone public as transgender just a couple of days earlier. On the whole I think it’s a great piece. I couldn’t give less of a crap about a golf putter, but a story about a fraud like this? Gripping stuff. It’s true that the pronouns are wrong and the “chill up my spine” line reads as insensitive even though I don’t think it was supposed to read as an ‘ew, transgenders!’ comment. And this should be an opportunity to educate people more than it should be an opportunity to rage against a stranger online.
We can’t know. It could have been either, both, or neither, and anyone who casts blame definitively has an agenda. Hannan was wrong to out Vanderbilt to McCord, but I think that was cluelessness rather than malice.
That’s true, and it’s unfortunate that people are excoriating him like this. He does have pity for her.
There’s no way. It would have been impossible to report that Vanderbilt had had been living under a different identity while keeping that identity (and thus her gender) a secret. When you discover that someone is a fraud - that they held a job in one city when they claim to have been working in another, for instance - you have to document it. Hannan couldn’t have done any of that without revealing that Vanderbilt used to be Stephen Krol. It’s an unrealistic restriction on journalists that would’ve made this story impossible, and it’s a degree of protection that isn’t warranted in this kind of situation. Transgender people are not frauds, but Vanderbilt was both TG and a fraud. We should be able to accept both of those ideas without prejudice.
I think you’re missing one of the major points of the story: that the club performed better when people thought it was a special club. By the end of the article, the putter had been abandoned by the PGA pro after just a couple weeks, and even the author basically said that the club was lost its luster in his estimation.
Just so you know, the golfer community is totally out of control in buying anything that promises to do anything for you. Magnets you attach to your wrist are still taken seriously as a good use of $150 to deal with back pain. The fact that a particular club or device is still being sold to golfers has zero indication that the thing has any redeeming performance qualities at all.
Right. The putter worked for Hannan when he thought Vanderbilt was a genius engineer; when he found out she wasn’t, it didn’t seem to be anything special. Putting is supposed to be one of those tasks where confidence is everything, which is one of the reasons it mattered that Vanderbilt was a confidence artist.
I think we all get what the major point of the story was: con man masquerading as a woman.
If there was another major point, the author is an even worse author than I already thought.
You know, you can object to some of the things Hannan did without deliberately twisting things so he’s Worse Than Hitler[sup]TM[/sup].
Really? Tell me more about golfing and this club. The article didn’t make me an iota more interested in either.
Golfers are into magnetic bracelets and will buy anything you tell them? I didn’t get that.
At the end it’s about how a con artist faked an amazing scientific background to take advantage of golfers’ desperate search for a great putter. There’s enough information about the putter at the beginning of the story if you found that really interesting, but what makes the story interesting is the shift from ‘great new putter’ to ‘new putter inventor is a weirdo’ to ‘inventor is running a con that even fooled some experts.’
For all we know, the club is still miraculous. The article doesn’t say one way or the other. About all I know now is the club must suck because a lying trannie made it.
He wrote a lot about this.
And the conclusion was?
He said something about MOI and it seemed cool until he found out more about the person who made it and then it doesn’t matter what you use, it’s probably in your head.
Yep, that’s the one. Thanks!
He wrote about his own experience with the putter. He wrote that the science behind the club appeared to be sound even though Vanderbilt’s CV was fiction and he wrote about one professional golfer who was helped by the putter and Vanderbilt’s advice. He also wrote about an investor in Yar Golf who got taken to the cleaners. The story wasn’t about the putter - that’s just where it started - but where are you getting the idea that he didn’t write anything else about it?
As many on both sides have acknowledged, we have NO idea why she committed suicide. That said, I don’t think you can tell this story without mentioned she was trans, or without it coming out eventually.
Why should trans people be handled with kid gloves? It’s not the job of a reporter to change his story based on the assumed fragility of his subject. Especially since I would bet that if Dr. V explained her privacy concerns in the beginning, I bet the reporter would have reevaluated the value in the story.
Either way, such a standard is unreasonable and unjustifiable. If it suddenly comes out that Obama is depressed and suicidal, should we expect reporters to not mention it, or stop criticizing him?
The reporter attempted to find out. Being coy about something like that after you lied about 100 other things pretty much guarantees he is gonna assume the worst.
Why is her opinion any more relevant than anyone else? Should Simmons have his Black reporters read any piece about Blacks and race? How far do you expect a media company to go with this? And what makes you assume this trans writer would have said anything?
Really? Did you read the article? I agree that it was a little bloodless given that a woman died, but I think the focus was pretty balanced.