Bruce Jenner Comes Out As Transgender

[JoshTheRadioDude]

I don't know or care what journalism school you went to, but that's absolutely not the way news decisions are made, and if you gave that as a reason why you didn't report a story, you'd get fired. The fact is that what public figures do is news, regardless if they themselves admit it. Bill Clinton didn't admit the story of his incident with Monica Lewinsky, and there are many others.

That's an entirely different situation. On the one hand, you have a public figure who's attempting to make a very personal change in life. On the other hand, you have a sitting president committing an affair. One demands a modicum of respect. The other does not. Bruce Jenner being a woman is not rightfully public information until Bruce Jenner says so. Bill Clinton getting a BJ from an intern is rightfully public information on the spot (pun intended) because he's the publicly-elected chief executive of the country putting himself in a compromising position on several different levels. There is no comparison to be made there.

And he also said he's not gay. So no, this is not the same thing as being gay.

Way to completely miss the point.

 

[TheBigA]

On the one hand, you have a public figure who's attempting to make a very personal change in life.

"Attempting?" You clearly don't know the story. He made the change a long time ago, and he's been very open about it for a while. He told his first wife about it. He said in the interview he's been cross dressing since he was 8 years old. He was getting female injections over 20 years ago.

This isn't about him "attempting to make a personal change." He's just waiting for an opportune time to cash in. That's the only issue. Money. So he got ABC to bite, and now I see that E! will also jump on the bandwagon. Truthfully, none of the early coverage was hurtful. It was just matter-of-fact reporting.

 

[landtuna]

Changes in the way our society views moral and ethical questions are among the forefront social issues of our time. Gay marriage and application or protection of religious convictions to civil issues have gone all the way to the Supreme Court.

The story of a person who lived with a "differentness" who only now felt able to reveal it and take action is a story of these changes in society.

It's not necessary to agree with the way society and our governing and regulatory entities are handling this to recognize that it is an issue and people are interested, involved and concerned about it. Because Jenner is prominent and notable on a number of levels, his story is the story of perhaps millions of "different" people in the country and should be exposed.

Jenner, reportedly, has been evolving from one gender to the other for a number of years now but it is only since the whole Kardashian family has reached the pinnacle of trashy newsworthlyness that it now takes over as the predominate feature story on a national basis. That is the sole issue I have with it. I feel very sorry for Bruce Jenner for a number of reasons, most of them mental and/or medical. I feel even sorrier for him as the point person for a lurid examination by exploitative "news" persons who feel his condition is somehow of prurient interest to a national news audience. I wonder how much his story would matter if he were not connected to the Kardashians.

Several nights ago NBC Nightly News carried two stories about two different youngsters (7 and 8 years old IIRC) who were also "gender challenged". The stories presented both families as approving and supporting their offspring to change their born gender apparently without regard to their ages or the severity of the problems they will face once reaching puberty and beyond. In neither story was there presented any medical analysis by professionals as to the context of this apparent condition. To me, it is an example of irresponsible reporting and in line with "if it bleeds, it leads".

I have a number of personal complaints about how NBC News selects their national stories but this feature takes the cake. They have outlived their usefulness to me with this shallow flotsam and I will no longer treat them as a bonafide news organization. A thorough examination of trans-gender people may be in the national public interest but it is not served well by NBC's or ABC's peep-show expose.

 

[TheBigA]

In neither story was there presented any medical analysis by professionals as to the context of this apparent condition.

And yet, when I went to the Nightly News web site, I very quickly found several stories completely built around professionals on the same story, including this one, which lead me to believe they have covered the medical side of the story as well:

One Doctor Explains the Journey for Kids Who Are Transitioning

Tue, Apr 21

Dr. Michelle Forcier, associate professor of pediatrics at Brown University Alpert Medical School, explains how puberty blockers work for transgender kids.

 

[Silkie]

Maybe in the family's gluttony for attention and fame they either rejected out of hand or just did not consider the possibility that hermaphroditism eventually requires that one or the other gender take over to save the life of the person. Or they all knew and just chose to use it for a trendy kind of thing, being the kind of people who even feed on their own.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

"Attempting?" You clearly don't know the story. He made the change a long time ago, and he's been very open about it for a while. He told his first wife about it. He said in the interview he's been cross dressing since he was 8 years old. He was getting female injections over 20 years ago.

This isn't about him "attempting to make a personal change." He's just waiting for an opportune time to cash in. That's the only issue. Money. So he got ABC to bite, and now I see that E! will also jump on the bandwagon. Truthfully, none of the early coverage was hurtful. It was just matter-of-fact reporting.

None of that matters to my underlying point.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

...or just did not consider the possibility that hermaphroditism eventually requires that one or the other gender take over to save the life of the person.

Keep in mind, we're talking about transgender people here, not intersex people. They're two different things. Transgender people are physically one sex but mentally a different gender. Intersex people ("hermaphrodites" is an archaic and generally offensive term) are physically both sexes and can identify as any gender. Additionally, intersex people are not required to choose "one or the other gender to save the life of the person." Forced surgery is, in fact, a practice proven to be psychologically and physically harmful and should be rejected. The only time gender confirmation surgery should be performed -- on either intersex or transgender people -- is if it will alleviate gender dysphoria. For some people it will, for others it won't. It's entirely a case-by-case basis. Or, at least, it should be. Sadly, there are still many doctors out there who perform surgery on intersex infants not long after birth, which is often disastrous down the road when their gender and physical development turns out to lean in the opposite direction.

 

[TheBigA]

None of that matters to my underlying point.

I'm simply addressing your statements.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

I'm simply addressing your statements.

The parts of my statements that you're addressing are things that you're taking out of context of the underlying point, which makes it sound like I'm saying something that I'm not. Whether he's attempting to cash in or not is irrelevant, this is still a personal change that he has the right to make on his own terms and nobody else's. The media is in the wrong whether Jenner had ulterior motives or not.

 

[TheBigA]

this is still a personal change that he has the right to make on his own terms and nobody else's. The media is in the wrong whether Jenner had ulterior motives or not.

I don't know that the media has speculated about his "ulterior motives." Regardless, his "rights" have nothing to do with the media's right to report what it knows. As I said, a public person has no "rights." That's been proven time and time again. If a reporter has first-hand knowledge of something, he has a right to report it. No one was making anything up, none of it was mean spirited, and all of it was obviously correct. So now Jenner has confirmed the reports on his own terms, at his own time. No problem here at all. This is how it's supposed to be.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

No, I'm not saying that they speculated about his ulterior motives, I'm saying that their speculation about his gender identity was wrong regardless of what his motives were in coming out. And while he may be a public figure, he does still have a right to privacy in many regards, including his gender identity. Like I said before, it's the same as if he were gay and still in the closet. He has a reasonable expectation to privacy in that regard. No reporter had first-hand knowledge of Jenner's gender identity until he told Diane Sawyer, therefore nobody had a right to report on it as if they did. It was speculation, some of it was mean-spirited, and just because it was correct does not mean it was justified. It was wrong of them, and when they get someone hurt by doing it all over again, there's going to be a serious conversation about just what sort of "right" the press has to look into anyone's private life.

 

[landtuna]

And yet, when I went to the Nightly News web site, I very quickly found several stories completely built around professionals on the same story, including this one, which lead me to believe they have covered the medical side of the story as well:

NBC saw fit to cover the circus-like fascination spectacle on Nightly News then, without any notice to the viewing audience, buries the professional side on a web site. See what I mean?

I used to read MSNBC web site daily and looked for the rest of the story there but to date haven't seen anything except a rehash of the original.

I erred in describing the site as MSNBC. Actually the URL lists the site as NBCNEWS. An even worse transgression IMHO.

 

[TheBigA]

No, I'm not saying that they speculated about his ulterior motives, I'm saying that their speculation about his gender identity was wrong regardless of what his motives were in coming out.

It wasn't speculation. It was based on first-hand knowledge. And it turned out to be correct. You don't have to get a televised interview to have first-hand knowledge. People get convicted of murder and never actually take the stand in their own defense. If our judicial system is based on eye-witness accounts, there's no problem with reporters doing the exact same thing. If the media is wrong, Jenner has the right to take them to court. But the media was right.

 

[TheBigA]

NBC saw fit to cover the circus-like fascination spectacle on Nightly News then, without any notice to the viewing audience, buries the professional side on a web site. See what I mean?

If it's on their web site, then it was covered on Nightly News. Maybe you missed it, but that's how they work. As you said, the web site is a rehash of what's on the TV show.

 

[JoshTheRadioDude]

It wasn't speculation. It was based on first-hand knowledge. And it turned out to be correct. You don't have to get a televised interview to have first-hand knowledge. People get convicted of murder and never actually take the stand in their own defense. If our judicial system is based on eye-witness accounts, there's no problem with reporters doing the exact same thing. If the media is wrong, Jenner has the right to take them to court. But the media was right.

The problem with your argument is that gender identity is not the same thing as appearance. You cannot know that someone is transgender just by looking at them. Eyewitness accounts do not constitute fact in this regard. So yes, there is a glaringly obvious problem with reporters using eyewitness accounts to back up claims that someone is or is not transgender. Until they, themselves, open their mouths and say "I am transgender," no reporter has any valid basis on which to make that claim. Period.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem with your argument is that gender identity is not the same thing as appearance.

The problem with your argument is that the media stories were not solely based on appearance. He had confessed his gender identity to his family, to previous wives, and lots of close associates. He just hadn't mentioned it directly in interviews. Then again, no one asked him. The reports came out after his divorce, so the first hand knowledge could have come from anyone in the Kardashian family, since they knew. They're about to launch a new season of Keeping Up With The Kardashians, and this issue will be dealt with there too. So the TV people knew. That's what I mean by first hand information.

 

[landtuna]

If it's on their web site, then it was covered on Nightly News. Maybe you missed it, but that's how they work. As you said, the web site is a rehash of what's on the TV show.

You missed my point. Since Nightly News website is a rehash of their televised program I did not look there for new information. I looked instead to MSNBC for an expanded story on the professional side of the transgender issue. I did not find it.

UPDATE: The site is not MSNBC but rather NBCNEWS. Even less reason to have incomplete or different stories.

 

[TheBigA]

UPDATE: The site is not MSNBC but rather NBCNEWS.

Yes I know. I thought I identified it that way. It hasn't been MSNBC for several years.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I have a number of personal complaints about how NBC News selects their national stories but this feature takes the cake. They have outlived their usefulness to me with this shallow flotsam and I will no longer treat them as a bonafide news organization.

If enough people feel this way, Brian Williams has a future.

 

[vchimpanzee]

To be factual about it, the story in the OP was not reported in a national news program, but in a prime time entertainment special, hosted by Diane Sawyer.

Was it not referred to as "20/20", which woul make it a news program?