This article could have been written in a way to avoid outing Dr. V. It could have been written so as to not misgender her, and use inflammatory speech. What about that passage where the author “get’s chills up his spine” when he discovers that she is trans? What about when he specifically outed her to shareholders?
Discussing the fraud is fine, but when you go to those lengths, your a bigot looking for sensation driven views of your article.
Only if those arguments are about “fraud by gender,” not criminal fraud that involves large amounts of money. If Bernie Madoff were trans we’d know about it by now- but that shouldn’t have stopped anyone from writing about him. The issue here isn’t whether she should have been written about. but how. At a certain point, we cannot be responsible for the prejudice and stupidity of others. The world we live in is highly imperfect, but is not bettered by telling journalists what is and is not worth reporting on. We still have to live in this world, it’s more than an abstraction and sometimes that means people get hurt through our action or inaction.
For example, reporting on a suicide should be done delicately, because research shows that detailing the method of suicide makes suicide epidemics more likely. That said, reporting a suicide at all contributes to suicides. At a certain point we cannot continue to take responsibility for the rest of society. We have to be ethical, but not to the point of paralysis.
What’s the alternative you’re proposing? What would you suggest is a fair treatment for, say, people who are accused of committing hate-crime assaults against transgender folks?
I agree that large swathes of the criminal-justice system in this country are unacceptably broken, unjust, discriminatory, unfair, and inhumane. But I presume you can agree that in any sufficiently large system, there will be injustices and pieces that don’t work the way they’re supposed to.
“In brief, Ambrosino wants queers like me who believe that we shouldn’t apologize for or excuse the homophobia or transphobia of our fellow countrymen and women, even if they’re our parents or our friends (which is a totally radical, scary notion, right?), should follow King’s lead and “condemn the evil without condemning the evildoer.” … But here’s the thing: I have listened to our opponents, and I’ve heard all the awful things they’ve said about us, including that we’re sinful and have murder in our hearts, and that we’re dangerous to children. I’ve listened to this kind of filth my entire life. And while I agree with Ambrosino in the vaguest of ways—I do think that many people who are coming to grips with their homophobia and are trying to understand queers should be approached with love and kindness and respect—those who spew hate need to be addressed and quickly countered.”
Okay; I agree with that in principle. My problem, though, is that I think a criminal-justice system is, unfortunately, a necessary part of a functioning society. And I, at least, live in a society of 300-something-million people. Any criminal justice system that is not hopelessly unjust due to local differences is necessarily going to be large.
So, saying that any problem with the system is unacceptable, and that the system is too large, doesn’t really help. What do you suggest as a better alternative?
These are not the same thing. So you’re comparing apples to oranges. No one disputes that the method of reporting here was wrong. The dispute here is, ridiculously enough, whether the subject was worthy. Also, the article isn’t directly relevant because it has nothing to do with outing, dog-whistles, or any number of issues which would be far more relevant.
Triage, purging the system of consensual “crimes” and regulating the fuck out of the Prison-Industrials. We don’t need to have such an incredibly, shockingly high percentage of the country incarcerated.
Again, agreed–those are sensible steps. But I don’t think that gets us to the point where we can say with any certainty that we’ve reduced the prison population so much we can guarantee no externalities like injustice or poorly functioning prisons.
In the USA, is it legally possible to slander a dead person? I think in England you cannot be guilty of slandering or libelling a dead person by definition. The article was published about a month after the death of Dr. V. I think the article was interesting - it’s relevant that the person was apparently a convicted fraudster before their name change. Gender reassignment doesn’t buy you immunity from being a fraudster under your previous name.
Well, but what was the fraud exactly? The golf club actually worked. It really was better than other golf clubs. There really was a business dedicated to developing and selling those golf clubs. The business was legit, and the product was good.
Yes, she lied about her background - but that’s almost irrelevant. She had a working product and a legitimate business selling those products. If I want to buy a golf club, I won’t care what kind of credentials the inventor has - I will care whether or not the thing actually works.
There’s “fraud” in “had falsely represented herself as a physicist with degrees from M.I.T. and Penn and experience doing classified work on advanced projects for the military”, certainly.
The more false information about a person’s prior experience, the more I’d be willing to believe that any studies that state that it “worked”, certainly better than other products were themselves riddled with falsehoods and relying primarily on marketing and anecdotal “successes”.
Now, is it fraud to the consumer? No more than any other golf product.
I cannot think of one fraudster that has made the news that was just said to not be the person they said they were. I also cannot think of one fraudster whose real identity was not revealed.
The thing that makes this case unique is that the person’s “real” identity was as a man, and was committing fraud as a woman. I’m sorry, but I cannot and will not endorse the notion that a criminal deserved special treatment for that reason.
EDIT: Can someone point me toward a pre-suicide publication which “outs” the “doctor”? It’s been a couple of days since I read the thing, but this seemed to be a post-mortem revelation. If that’s the case…wow. All this noise because a journalist did their job and investigated–maybe 60 Minutes should be taking notes–confronted the subject about it, was threatened with bodily harm, and is vilified after the subject commits suicide.
I believe the implication, here, is that she killed herself because she knew she was about to be outed. I’m not aware of any suicide note, so I don’t know if it was the fear of being outed as a trans woman, or the fear of being outed as a fraud. Or even if the article actually had anything to do with it at all (though the timing is pretty convenient). From the original post:
Finally, at the end, we learn she killed herself, shortly after Hannan notified her of her imminent outing in the press.
just out of curiosity, then, is it the fraud that makes you think this is an allowable act? or would you out any transwoman or transman you meet and felt justified by it because of the ‘fraud’ you perceive? if not, what about the fraud makes this allowable? did you believe the fraud was somehow enhanced by her being a woman? did her woman-ness somehow make the product worth more or a higher quality? how is her gender presentation relevent to the fraud, other than the idea that you seem to equate her lifestyle itself with the fraud she committed? if you can answer any of those, it’d be appreciated, 'cause it just seems like you’re for outing vulnerable communities in dangerous ways out of an inflated sense of self-righteous moralizing of other people’s choices.
I’m confused as to why some commenters seem to think that the fraud Dr V is being accused of is ‘being a woman’ rather than ‘lying about her credentials and obtaining investment money under false prentenses’.
