The Phoenix Network:
 
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Best of Providence 2009

Trans fact

When a person in the center of a media maelstrom has had a sex change, is it fair game for the press?
By ADAM REILLY  |  May 20, 2009

09052_t_main

Aiden Quinn used to be a woman. Now he's a man. It's a titillating detail — but is it news?

Quinn, you'll likely recall, is the 24-year-old subway driver from Attleboro who — moments after text-messaging his girlfriend on the evening of May 8 — crashed a Green Line train into another near the MBTA's Government Center stop, injuring roughly 50 passengers and causing an estimated $9.6 million in damages. The accident dominated the Boston news for days and prompted the announcement, on May 13, of a no-cell-phones policy for the T's drivers; it also led to Quinn's firing.

Given Quinn's admission that he was, in fact, texting prior to the accident, there's a general consensus that he's a dumbass. But there's no such agreement among the Boston media as to whether his switch from identifying as a woman to a man was germane to the larger story.

Some outlets seemed certain that it was. On May 11, for example, WFXT-TV (Fox 25) made Quinn's gender switch the lead fact of a Web story about his background (ahead of his driving record, which includes at least three speeding tickets — apparently he's a bad car driver, too) and played it up on Twitter. The Boston Herald took a similarly sensationalistic approach. On May 12, the tabloid highlighted Quinn's identity switch, calling him "stocky" for good measure — and the next day's paper boasted three more references, including a sniggering Howie Carr column and a news-you-just-might-use piece on transgender protocol ("Sex Change a Simple Switch at RMV") by reporter Dave Wedge.

Others were far more restrained. Following internal discussions, New England Cable News (NECN) sought to downplay that aspect of Quinn's history; as news director Tom Melville puts it, "It's part of who [Quinn] is, but it's not the main story." The Globe, too, de-emphasized Quinn's sex change. A May 12 piece by Noah Bierman on hiring standards at the T cited it, but the detail came late in the piece, and was delivered in a detached, matter-of-fact tone. Meanwhile, other Globe stories omitted reference to Quinn's past existence as a woman altogether.

"We knew very early of his transgender status, and we thought very hard about including it," explains Globe metro editor Brian McGrory. "It's certainly a provocative part of his personal history, but the question we asked was, 'Was it relevant to the crash itself?' And we couldn't determine that it was.

"Then we asked, 'Was it worth using at all?' " adds McGrory. "We determined that — because he's a person in the news, and because many of the facts that we were getting about him involved his driving record, and it was right there on his driving record that he was transgender — the proper thing to do was point it out, but not play it up particularly high in the story."

According to some advocates for the transgendered, though, even the lower-key approaches of the Globe and NECN went too far. A statement from the Massachusetts Transgender Political Caucus, for example, argued that a single mention of Quinn's gender switch was tantamount to yellow journalism: "Anything related to his gender identity would be irrelevant and further perpetuate unnecessary sensationalism. . . . Media outlets should be reporting on the facts of the case and not using sensationalistic coverage of a person's identity or former name when neither has a bearing on the case."

Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), makes a similar argument about media references to Quinn's sex change. "We know why they're doing it — they're doing it because it's a sensationalistic angle, that's all," Keisling tells the Phoenix. "They may be able to come up with some weird rationalization, and pretend it's relevant to the story. But it's irrelevant, it's inappropriate, and it's harmful."

Journalism or advocacy?
Keisling's concern is understandable. Even though dangerous texting is a phenomenon that cuts across every demographic line — and despite the utter dearth of evidence that Quinn's gender change caused the accident in question — certain excitable right-wingers have already seized on the crash as a general indictment of transsexuals. After the accident, for example, right-wing blogger (and Herald city editor) Jules Crittenden asked: "Should people who deny fundamental biological facts and claim to be of the opposite gender be entrusted with large public conveyances that carry dozens of commuters?" (Crittenden also suggested that the National Transportation Safety Board look at whether hormonal treatment might have hampered Quinn's judgment. Based on this reasoning, a bunch of Greater Boston's shitty drivers currently must be switching sexes.)

But here's the problem with these calls for silence: asking the reporters who covered the crash to omit any reference to Quinn's sex change is, in essence, a request for journalists to be advocates rather than reporters.

It's true, as Keisling notes, that journalists don't usually highlight a particular individual's race, unless said individual is a criminal suspect who's still at large, or race plays an obvious role in the story. It's also true that — except in certain instances that reek of personal hypocrisy, like conservative evangelical preacher Ted Haggard's sexcapades with a male prostitute — we don't highlight matters of sexual orientation, either.

1  |  2  |   next >
  Topics: Media -- Dont Quote Me , Brian McGrory, Howie Carr, Joe Pesaturo,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Comments
Re: Trans fact
A person's private medical history is just that PRIVATE. It had absolutely NO bearing on the case. The press was merely engaging in sensationalism to boost ratings/readership. What amazes me is how the press fails to see the link between this crash and people driving distracted because of cell phones and/or texting. It's an epidemic and nobody is doing anything about it. Correction: They have passed laws, but the laws are NOT enforced. Distracted driving, whether in a train or a car, is a rapidly increasing problem.
By xrk9854 on 05/21/2009 at 8:59:28
Re: Trans fact
Gender is not relevant to this story. It's not advocacy to decide that information is not relevant. It's good judgment.
By Former Real Paper lover on 05/21/2009 at 1:16:30
Re: Trans fact
"But gender is different. ... And while Quinn now identifies as a man, his gender still doesn't fit the traditional binary mode of categorization. That's why Quinn defined himself online as "FtM" — female to male — ... If, hypothetically, every Boston journalist agreed not to report this fact, they'd give the Jules Crittendens of the world one less opportunity to rant. But they'd also be suppressing information they usually report — and, through excessive protectiveness, fostering the notion that transsexual status is shameful." Lemme get this right, "Tim Geithner, male, Sec. of the Treasury." That's the way journalists do it? And, since Quinn defines himself as FtM on Craigslist or some board on the net you find that is a "best practices" journalistic standard. "I mean, boss, someone wrote that on a BB I read on the net, why can't can't I use ROTFLMAO in my story?" Or, "Well I blared his gender status not as male like his DL says, but as FtM because I was out there supporting the cause of TG rights?" LOL. The Archdiocese should have hired you to write their PR releases during the recent unpleasantnesses! How disingenuous do you think you can be and people not see it? Evidently, pretty disingenuous.
By funfact on 05/21/2009 at 4:46:38
Re: Trans fact
Funfact, you lost me there. What's the connection between 1. saying it's okay for the press to report that Quinn is trans because gender is a standard journalistic descriptor and 2. defending the sexual abuse of kids by priests?
By Adam Reilly on 05/21/2009 at 5:12:29
Re: Trans fact
Just that, Adam, your ability to justify in a rather torturous fashion should be perfect for such a task as 2.
By funfact on 05/21/2009 at 5:18:54
Re: Trans fact
From rmy reading of on-line articles, Georgia Quinn had the bad driving record (and wrote a bad check to pay a ticket's fine).  Was Georgia's driving record looked at by the MBTA or did they hire Aiden Quinn who had a clean sheet?  That's where the trans fact seems relevant to me.
By Carol Anne on 05/22/2009 at 8:32:50
Re: Trans fact
The only reason you think it isn't offensive to be identified by a former gender is that you don't understand someone who doesn't fit the gender binary. What about a person who was born a Catholic, but who becomes a Jew, and then commits an error that results in harm and cost to others, and the press finds out about the person's change of religion and somehow equates this change with fact of the error: He's really a Catholic, and you all know Catholics tend to be negligent or something.  Blame it on the pronouns, but that doesn't fit, either, since Quinn uses masculine pronouns, and although he has publicly acknowledged that he is FTM, that's equivalent to acknowledging his medical history, which is his busines to do, but does not reflect every aspect of himself. You might call it a "gender history" to make it easier to equate with a racial history, because when most of us look at another person we cannot identify their racial or ethnic history, and unless a person chooses to reveal it, it should be none of our business. The only reason some people find Quinn's gender history interesting is because of prejudice against people whose gender history is different from their own, or from what they understand as 'normal'. It's just another point on which to judge a person harshly, a way of having something to hold over the other person to make them feel less-than, and their critic to feel more-than. Give it up!  Quinn's transgender or transsexual status has nothing to do with his driving, and it's not news!
By Jamison on 05/22/2009 at 8:13:55
Re: Trans fact
Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums. Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this information was picked up.
Now, Aiden's transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided.
Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public: If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then use female pronouns and descriptors. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. This would be an incorrect usage of gender descriptors.
When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If there's a possibility that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting has nothing to do with advocacy. It has to do with reporting the facts correctly--in this case, the gender of the person as he identifies now--and giving people relevant information in a way that minimizes harm to the people you are reporting about.
You want to make sure the public knows that a person in your story doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know this kind of information? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in one of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change—to go from one box to the other.
Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting—possibly even traumatizing—and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and very sensitive.
I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by the organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence on this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media.
Even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to transgender people (for instance, if a pattern of favoring transpeople over other minorities in MBTA's hiring practices has come to light) and one could no longer responsibly refer to Aiden's "minority status" in general terms, there still is absolutely no need to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here.  It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.

By PeterL on 05/22/2009 at 9:17:45
Re: Trans fact
Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums.Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this informatin was picked up.
Now, his transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided. Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public. If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then refer to her as female. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If the possibility exists that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered and verified before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting does not have anything to do with advocacy. It has to do with behaving in a responsible way not only to your public, but to your subjects. You want to make sure the public knows that a person you are writing about doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know that this person is "different"? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in on of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change--to switch from one box to the other. Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting--possibly even traumatizing--and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and sensitive. I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by this organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence of anything like this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media. And even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to Aiden's transgender status, there would still not be a good reason to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here. It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.

By PeterL on 05/22/2009 at 9:58:13
Re: Trans fact
Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums.Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this informatin was picked up. Now, his transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided. Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public. If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then refer to her as female. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If the possibility exists that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered and verified before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting does not have anything to do with advocacy. It has to do with behaving in a responsible way not only to your public, but to your subjects. You want to make sure the public knows that a person you are writing about doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know that this person is "different"? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in on of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change--to switch from one box to the other. Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting--possibly even traumatizing--and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and sensitive. I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by this organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence of anything like this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media. And even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to Aiden's transgender status, there would still not be a good reason to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here. It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.
By PeterL on 05/22/2009 at 10:00:05
Re: Trans fact
Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums.Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this informatin was picked up.
Now, his transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided. Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public. If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then refer to her as female. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If the possibility exists that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered and verified before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting does not have anything to do with advocacy. It has to do with behaving in a responsible way not only to your public, but to your subjects. You want to make sure the public knows that a person you are writing about doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know that this person is "different"? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in on of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change--to switch from one box to the other. Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting--possibly even traumatizing--and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and sensitive. I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by this organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence of anything like this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media. And even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to Aiden's transgender status, there would still not be a good reason to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here. It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.

By PeterL on 05/22/2009 at 10:01:53
Re: Trans fact
Sorry about all the repeats. It didn't look like it was going in, so I resent it (numerous times!).
By PeterL on 05/22/2009 at 10:04:36
Re: Trans fact
Adam,

Unless you are trans yourself, and given the content and tone of your article I would venture a guess that you are not, you have absolutely no right or privelage to discuss issues of disclosure of trans status.  Much less do you have the right to discuss how disclosure or lack therof may relate to issues of shame or truthful disclosure.  There are several truths about this person.  One is that he is a knucklehead, to put it mildly.  Another is that he has caused quite a bit of pain and suffering, not to mention property damage. 

Another truth is that he is a male.  And that is it.  Whatever history may exist behind that is irrelevant.  When I read print media, yes I do see someone's gender and age listed.  However, I do not see their race, religion, or lending library fine record printed as well.  Your actions are transphobic, sensationalistic and quite honestly somewhat hateful.

I notice that you have an Irish surname.  While I think very little of your journalistic integrity after reading this piece, I certainly would not go so far as to blame it on your potential Irish roots, and whatever stereotypes or misconceptions may come along with it.  Given that you are writing for what is allegedly one of the more progressive "mainstream" publications in metro Boston, I suggest you print a retraction right about now.
By DocMaddie on 05/25/2009 at 7:25:43
Re: Trans fact
Carol Anne,

If "Georgia" had a bad driving record, so would Aiden.  When you change your name, it goes through the courts.  There is a specific name change process which is designed to prevent people from leaving former records, good or bad, behind.  This is not the old west.  Your SS# stays the same, etc.... It's just a name and gender marker that changes.

Adam, so what if he was hired due to quotas.  When was the last time you reported on someone who did a less than stellar job abd who may have benefited from affirmative action, and pointed out that they would have never been hired in the first place without affirmative action?
By DocMaddie on 05/25/2009 at 7:37:42
Re: Trans fact
Doc: I'm "hateful" for suggesting that a portion of the media may not have erred in soberly reporting Quinn's trans status? No one who *isn't* trans should be able to weigh in on this issue? Thanks, but I'll pass on your retraction request.Also, your Irish surname comments are nonsensical. Absolutely nowhere in my column do I suggest that Quinn crashed because he's trans. In fact, I do the exact opposite in my discussion of Jules Crittenden's blog post.
By Adam Reilly on 05/25/2009 at 6:23:40
Re: Trans fact
Doc, I meant to add--one of your criticisms strikes me as more fair than the rest, i.e. that as a non-trans individual, I don't have the right to say how much candor about trans status is/isn't good. I'll grant you that my perspective on this topic is that of an outsider's. But I also think that, with *any* identifying characteristic, calls for discrete/sensitive silence can end up reinforcing the very prejudices they've supposed to guard against. And, as indicated above, I have a hard time with the idea that conversations about certain identities and how they're publicly constructed/treated should be restricted to individuals who posess the identities in question.All that said, feel free to contact me if you'd like continue this discussion. I'm at areilly@thephoenix.com. You can also weigh in with a letter to the editor; if you send it to me I'll pass it on to the appropriate parties. 
By Adam Reilly on 05/25/2009 at 6:34:52
Re: Trans fact
Adam, I would be interested in your response to the points I made. Or do you only respond to people that attack you? My message is actually well-organized--I just couldn't get the paragraphs to show.
 
By PeterL on 05/25/2009 at 9:51:43

ARTICLES BY ADAM REILLY
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   TRANS FACT  |  May 20, 2009
    When a person in the center of a media maelstrom has had a sex change, is it fair game for the press?
  •   DEAL OR NO DEAL?  |  May 15, 2009
    Will the Globe 's biggest union balk at the Times Co.'s offer? Plus, the Christian Science Monitor 's quietly successful re-launch, and sportswriter Bill Simmons's GM jones
  •   DIE ANOTHER DAY  |  May 07, 2009
    The clock starts now on a potential Globe sale
  •   WILL THE GLOBE SURVIVE?  |  April 30, 2009
    Sizing up the paper's future as it approaches the deadline from hell
  •   ALL QUIET ON THE TIMES CO. FRONT  |  April 09, 2009
    The Globe crisis leaves New York speechless. Plus, Morrissey Boulevard's problematic political fan club

 See all articles by: ADAM REILLY

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group