Link Roundup: Responses to Grantland’s Trans Outing -The Toast

Skip to the article, or search this site

Home: The Toast

golfYou may or may not already be familiar with Caleb Hannan’s article on Grantland this week, in which an investigation about the inventor of a new golf putter turns into the outing of a trans woman (who committed suicide before the article was published). It’s a deeply troubling article for many reasons — not least of which, as Rebecca Schoenkopf pointed out, is that the writer was given eight months to report on a putter.

What might have made for a worthy premise (creator of a possibly-revolutionary golf club appears to have falsified some of her professional credentials) is quickly abandoned once the reporter “discovers” that she is a trans woman, which becomes the new focus of his piece.

It is not possible for a journalist to ethically out someone. The case can sometimes be made for outing well-known, homophobic public figures, but that is far removed from the case at hand. It cannot, and should not, ever be done; this should be standard journalistic practice. Given that the writer knew his subject committed suicide during the reporting of this piece — it is impossible to know exactly how much the fear of being outed during Hannan’s reporting contributed to her death, but it cannot have helped — both he and his editor(s) ought to have realized that whatever value may have originally lain in his story was now outweighed by the outing and death of a private figure who never volunteered information about her personal life.

That is not, of course, what happened. There have been numerous responses to the piece in the last few days; we have collected some of the most thoughtful and impassioned ones here. Please feel free to include any you feel we may have excluded in the comments.

From Shakesville:

Further, he catalogs her deception about her educational and professional background alongside the revelation that she is trans, in a way that suggests her failure to reflexively disclose that she is trans as part of any introduction to a new person is a lie, just like so many others she told.

From Aoifeschatology — a longform piece from a trans woman:

A trans woman had been living stealth and succeeding in her unusual career as a design of speciality golf clubs. Pendulum putters, precise physics of pitch and trajectory, engineering the flight of a small white ball. Not my cup of tea, but whatever. She was good at what she did. A success.

A sport journalist decides to write a piece on her latest invention, but, in the course of researching her work, uncovers that she’s trans.

Two options: (1) politely recognize that you’re being a prying prat and realise that this has no relevance to your article; (2) be a completely soulless cretin by confronting her about it, threaten disclosure in print, and insinuate that she’s to blame for being deceitful.

From Maria Dahvana Headley, on how to handle hostile interview subjects thoughtfully:

As the piece goes on, and Hannan digs deeper into Dr. V, it becomes clear that much of Dr. V’s backstory is unclear, contradictory, and that some of it is actively untrue.

Does this have bearing on the golf club? No. The golf club remains the golf club. But as the piece progresses, Hannan’s own angle on the club devolves into a sense of personal betrayal, that this subject, who explicitly did not grant him permission to write about her, has lied to him about the facts of her life (facts which he seems to feel are his personal property.) The club he previously treasured becomes a club he now finds unmagical, and its inventor, he decides, is a con artist. (Which con, exactly? She invented a better golf club. People like it. It’s good. We’re not talking about theft, we’re talking about selling a product that people like. That she is part of the product’s legend – though clearly not much: Hannan himself states that she doesn’t appear on the videos regarding it, and that her image is not actually being used to sell it, is apparently enough of a betrayal for Hannan that he feels provoked to actively harass the club’s creator in the name of journalism. Never mind that also in the name of journalism, he’s earlier represented himself as a journalist writing about the club, not writing about the scientist who invented it.)

Some notes on the obvious from me, here:

1) Being transgender does not mean that you are “lying” about your gender.

2) Being transgender is not a con. It is not a lie meant to advance your social status. Suicide rates for transgender people are appalling- a 2010 study reported a 41% attempt rate! Transgender people have a hard damn time in the world, and regularly get killed, fired, beaten up, and generally fucked with for being transgender. Dr. V. is a woman who was born in a male body. Fuck it. This happens. So, the moment Hannan begins to sell the fact of Dr. V’s trans* status as part of the evidence that Dr. V. is a liar… well.

From Autostraddle:

Hannan details Dr. V’s history of lawsuits, relationships and a suicide attempt. He describes outing her as trans to at least one investor without her consent, and without any acknowledgement of the fact that that’s what he was doing. And then, as the linchpin of the piece, he writes “What began as a story about a brilliant woman with a new invention had turned into a tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself. Yet the biggest question remained unanswered: Had Dr. V created a great golf club or merely a great story?”

“A tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself.”

A troubled man.

Just like that, Hannan did what so many people do: he called into question the reality of Dr. V’s gender as if her being trans was as suspect as her missing degrees, engaging in the deplorable and time-honored practice of depicting trans* people, and especially trans women, as duplicitous and deceitful.

From Gender Terror:

Media consistently tells trans* people that we are not worthy. We are jokes. Every where we turn, we are the butt of another joke, another murder, another shock piece. Our society is fascinated with us, for all the wrong reasons. We are seem as freaks, deceivers, liars. We are asked invasive questions about our bodies and our histories. We are exposed if we are stealth as some ‘great’ service to the world, though our outing often leads to us becoming homeless, assaulted, jobless, and so on. We are harmed more through this outing, than we ever are living in stealth.

For a very thoughtful and empathetic account from a reporter about how to deal with a subject’s death, I recommend Leonora LaPeter Anton’s self-investigative story about the suicide of Gretchen Molannen, a woman who suffered from persistent sexual arousal syndrome and killed herself days before Anton’s original piece went to print.

Add a comment

Comments (39)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Not always a big fan of the current iteration of Jezebel, but this take is thoughtful and interesting: http://jezebel.com/trans-woman-commits-suicide-am...
I hadn't heard about this. It's atrocious. A website I review for states in their guidelines, "We never, under any circumstances, out transpeople," and I remember wondering why they felt the need to state something so obviously within the realm of common sense. Sadder and wiser now.
Thank you for collecting these here. The responses should serve as a guide going forward. When the Grantland writer said a chill went down his spine at the discover that Dr. V was trans, a chill went down my own spine. It was written as though the subject was revealed to have been a murderer! Dr. V's writing style may have been offbeat, but she was certainly clear that she did not agree to talk to the reporter about any story about her personal life or background.

Glad this led me Leonora LaPeter Anton's story. Night and day.
i can never read articles like this; just seeing the ugliness in reflection, from the outrage, scares me enough.
3 replies · active 583 weeks ago
I first heard about the article on Grantland, clicked on it, and was immediately mad at myself for giving them the pageview. The quotes and the outrage do indeed say enough.
The only way I'm giving Grantland any pageviews right now is if they respond directly to the criticisms and offer an apology for running this article that sensationalizes trans issues so blatantly. (And if anyone has a link to a Grantland apology, I'd love to see it. I'm not clicking over to look for one.)

Hannan actually wrote “A chill actually ran up my spine" when he learned that his source was a trans woman. "A chill"? That kind of writing turns a complex issue of social marginalization, personal history, and civil rights into something like a Hammer Horror clip.

Even if we skip the crucial question of journalistic ethics, it's terrible writing. That's some appalling scandal-sheet nonsense that dehumanizes trans women and men and makes the author's titillated ignorance the center of the story.
That was, in some ways, the worst part of the piece to me. It was just so fundamentally ignorant and wrong. And yes, shitty writing to boot.
Thank you for posting this round-up despite the long weekend. This is important; thank you.
Anton's piece is heartbreaking and sensitive and interesting. Thank you for including it!
The author's "reveal" alone is fucking disgusting:

“What I really hope for you is that you could meet her someday,” he said at another point in the conversation, from what seemed out of nowhere.

He was clearly trying to tell me something, which is why he began emphasizing certain words. Every time he said “she” or “her” I could practically see him making air quotes. Finally it hit me. Cliché or not, a chill actually ran up my spine.


How he even published this in such detail after her suicide is just . . . a breath-taking failure of empathy.
I am still pinging with rage that this happened on Grantland, which is one of my preferred internet places for clever, interesting writing (of which the piece in question is clearly neither). Unless there's some kind of apology forthcoming from the editors I don't know how inclined I'll be to continue reading, great writers or no, because this is inexcusable.

Also echoing Elsa in saying that it's very appreciated that you've posted about this on the weekend.
hope you don't mind me adding a personal link to this.... http://faeinterrupted.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/st...
This is a really important story, thank you for writing about it.
This piece by Paris Lees over at Vice is a must read as well - http://www.vice.com/read/the-mysterious-case-of-c...
1 reply · active 583 weeks ago
"There’s something more than a little absurd about this asshole telling Caleb, 'There’s something you should know' before adding 'but it’s too terrible for me to confirm,' like it’s some unspeakable truth. You know, that transgender people exist." aaaaah this is good.
Thank you, Mallory, for posting something about this. Keep us in the loop if Grantland responds? I'm VERY interested in that, as well.
1 reply · active 583 weeks ago
according to this: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116271/grantla... Grantland is supposed to respond soon
This has sent me down so many rabbit holes (including the Wikipedia entry on songs that are really about masturbation - oh that's why he wants to play with his ding-a-ling!) and I emerge from them sadder & wiser but no less outraged.
worth remembering the Samaritans gudelines on reporting suicide, especially the point that language like "commit suicide" is considered inappropriate. http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guid...
AJ McKenna's avatar

AJ McKenna · 583 weeks ago

Can I add my two cents on this too?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XsGIfzIO2xo&desk...
The "chill up my spine" is telling, more about Hannan than about anything else. It was waaaaaay too personal and stupidly phobic a reaction to new information about the inventor of a putter. From there he pretty much spirals out of control and almost forgets the putter entirely, to focus on what he thinks is the "bigger story". What comes out loudest in subtext is that he was aghast that a trans* woman could pass - and became determined to out her everywhere asap.

Mallory, kudos to you for mentioning the editors at Grantland, most of the reporting I've seen has focused exclusively on Hannan, when we all know that pieces don't get published without editorial approval. I would like to know if Grantland asked for and/or made any changes to the piece before publication, and moreso I would like to know WHY they felt this was a publishable piece. It should have been spiked; one man's transphobic vendetta (no mater how elegantly written) does not a newsworthy story make.
1 reply · active 583 weeks ago
What comes out loudest in subtext is that he was aghast that a trans* woman could pass

Yes! This is so, so strange to me. (It reminds me of when I was a teenager (in the South, in the 90s) and arguing about gay rights with a very religious classmate who said, with absolute conviction, "But I don't know any gay people." Yes you do! You are talking to one right now! Which is what I told him. I'm sure he got a chill up his spine, too.) This complete othering and dehumanization of this woman is about her being trans* and him not being able to tell. Somehow it becomes a(n unexamined) threat to his own sense of self.
S.I. Rosenbaum's "Dr. V: an edit after the fact" illustrates how the story could have been told without outing Dr. V. Since I refuse to give Hannan the pageview, it also gave me a better sense of the structure of the original article without having to actually go to Grantland.

Rosenbaum's piece is available here: http://si.arrr.net/device/2014/01/18/dr-v-an-edit...

A commenter on Maria Davahana Headley's piece noted that ESPN (which owns Grantland) has an independent ombudsman responsible for reviewing their journalism/reporting across all their platforms.

You can provide feedback using the form available here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=2...
1 reply · active 583 weeks ago
Ohh thanks for this! I want to read this article but don't want to click to Grantland. I'll check out Rosenbaum instead.
well this is fucking horrible.
Doctor Jay's avatar

Doctor Jay · 583 weeks ago

I do not wish to blame Dr. V in any way, nor do I wish to condone Hannan and his attitude or behavior.

AND, I would very much like to encourage all trans people to have some sort of support network where you can be out and talk about things. As severe as outing can be, I personally do not wish to see more of you depart the scene prematurely.

Because you, or at least, people like you, inspire me. On a daily basis. Please take care of yourselves.

Love,

A Dad
There is nothing that could excuse or make up for this, and all my thoughts towards the responsible parties boil down to wishing them death and pain and ruin.
Grantland have their responses up:

A letter from the Editor.
What Grantland got wrong, by Christina Kahrl.
1 reply · active 583 weeks ago
“When anyone criticizes the Dr. V feature for lacking empathy in the final few paragraphs, they’re right. Had we pushed Caleb to include a deeper perspective about his own feelings, and his own fears of culpability, that would have softened those criticisms.”

Yes, that’s precisely the empathy the piece needed! A spoonful of manpain to help the posthumous outing go down!

Jesus Christ.
This thing feels so amateur hour. I'd be interested to know Hannah's background, and also, why there were no adults in the room, who said, oh hey, wait a second, we've gone totally off the reservation here. The discussion of her academic credentials, sure. That's within bounds. But outting her? Totally unethical, unless she puts it on the record. S.I. Rosenbaum's point in the piece linked upthread is dead on: As journalists, we don't have an obligation to tell every story. Whoring for pageviews ain't ethical, kids. And there are rules to this game.
4 replies · active 583 weeks ago
this bit of Simmons' response stuck out to me:
But even now, it’s hard for me to accept that Dr. V’s transgender status wasn’t part of this story. Caleb couldn’t find out anything about her pre-2001 background for a very specific reason. Let’s say we omitted that reason or wrote around it, then that reason emerged after we posted the piece. What then?

What then? Then they could have said something like "our writer wrote around this because it would have been unethical to out her", and maybe a few people would have suggested on twitter and in comment boxes that they were lying and hadn't known, but that would have been it. But somehow that situation is, even now, unthinkable for Simmons. The fear of potentially looking like they'd missed something still seems more real, as a motivating factor, than the fear of doing damage to someone's life.
yeah, jesus, it's like the journalist's fomo. "Oh me! I couldn't have left that out--people might have thought I didn't know about it! That'd be worse than a suicide of a transwoman over what turned out to be a criminally stupid article!"
yeah, jesus, it's like the journalist's fomo. "Oh me! I couldn't have left that out--people might have thought I didn't know about it! That'd be worse than a suicide of a transwoman over what turned out to be a criminally stupid article!"
Yeah, there's so much ego wrapped up in this. They needed to take a step - or like a thousand steps - back.

In general, I like internet style - that less formal, less evening news voice way of writing and story-telling. It tends to foreground the writer's subjectivity, which is often a good thing. But in this case, it was part of the problem. A more detached style would have served the subject better. The writer - and his solving the mystery - should never have been the story here. But that's what it became. Step back, be an observer, not a participant.
Considering that Hannan has been in hot water before for sloppy, defamatory journalism, they should have been babysitting him at least. http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/22/59557.ht...

They failed to do that and let him hound a person into suicide.
The blood is on their collective hands.
I just waded though Simmons' apology and am struck by the fact that they're leaving the original article up. Sort of undercuts his mea culpa, despite his justifications for doing so. Mmmmm, pageviews (yeah, I'm a cynic).

He's essentially saying that the story was going nowhere until Dr. V died and Hannan rewrote the piece making her identity as a trans* woman the linchpin of the article. Then, everyone was "blown away". How the hell did "not having a story until the subject took her own life" not set off every humane alarm bell in the vicinity? This is what I can't get past. I've read and re-read his apology and still cannot see a valid reason for them ever publishing it (at one point he implies that they somehow owed it to Dr. V to publish it, which...just...I can't even).
Shakes has a critique of the response up: http://www.shakesville.com/2014/01/defensive-dish...

Neiman Storyboard has a larger collection of reaction tweets than I've seen elsewhere: http://www.niemanstoryboard.org/2014/01/19/the-jo...
Really pisses me off how much the apology seems to stress how "young" they all were. Hannan is 31. The editor is presumably a litlte older. I'm 34, I'm not a goddamn kid and I wasn't 3 years ago either. I'm sure there are things about how the world works one's likely to be hopelessly unaware of at this age, but empathy and the basics of how to do one's job shouldn't be among them. ("Oh, we didn't know anything about handling trans issue!"" WHAT A PITY. IF ONLY THERE WERE SOMEONE AROUND WHOSE JOB WAS FINDING OUT STUFF.)

I mean God, do they do this with anything adults actually like to do? "No, I can't drive, or have sex, or stay up past midnight, I'm only THIRTY-ONE." Or is it just being called on their lethal fuck-ups they're too tiny for?

Post a new comment

Comments by

Skip to the top of the page, search this site, or read the article again