Using the preferred pronouns is an issue of respect for the person's choices, or just as possibly, respect for the fact that you'll get a bunch of groups pissed off at you if you don't.

The journalistic standard does not dictate to identify the kid as male. It says to use male pronouns. There is a difference.

I suppose it depends on this. Do you think there is a difference between a transgender boy and a boy? If not, ok, then it makes no difference to the story, and quite frankly, why is it mentioned elsewhere, and why is this a story at all? If yes, then you have to ask why the reporter would feel the need to declare that this kid is a "boy" and not a "transgender boy." If you think it's just because of style guidelines, I think you're being overly generous.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

again, i think this is a distinction without a difference.



i think its both out of respect and following style guidelines (which are also born out of respect)

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I appreciate that you at least acknowledge the distinction, which, it seems, Dan is incapable of. As to whether it makes a difference, read the sentence again:



I think it's pretty clear, for those willing to look at the statement objectively, that this goes well beyond guidelines.

Go back to Rachel Dolezal analogy, which I think is useful here, because I believe she thinks she has a legitimate claim to blackness because of how she views herself as a member of black american culture, and in her mind, that should suffice, just as transgendered people believe themselves to be a member of the opposite gender. Now, imagine if a journalist was talking about how she was being relegated to a group, for whatever hypothetical you care to construct here, based on her actual whiteness, and the story the journalist was telling was about how she's being forced into something that should not apply to her.

"But unlike the rest of the group's white members, Dolezal, 39, is black."

Now, to me, that's not unbiased journalism. It's counterfactual advocacy for acceptance of a construct in which people have a legitimate claim to be whatever it is they believe themselves to be.

I think you understand the difference, nuanced though it may seem (it's not, but whatever). I'm not sure Dan actually gets it, and I find his default interpretation insulting and, frankly, lazy. But that's his prerogative.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Maybe. I think it's just as likely that the style guide is a response to vocal protest anytime someone offends a person by failing to use their preferred manner of address, and I think it's just as likely that this reporter either made the declarative statement that he did because it would generate a bit of controversy or because the reporter or his editor is supporting an ideological viewpoint in doing so.

I think an objective report would have said "transgender boy" which seems to fall right in line with the Reuters guidance posted earlier.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I hereby announce that from now on I will be referred to as "King Duffy!"

And yes, he exclaimation point is required. At the beginning of each reply to me, King Duffy! you must write the following...

"King Duffy!, if I may..."

At the end of each reply you must close with...

"....and thank you, King Duffy!, for taking the time to read my most unworthy blather."

Anything less will be deemed offensive, boycotts will be organized and we will try to destroy your life!!!!!

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

"it's just as likely that the style guide is a response to vocal protest anytime someone offends a person by failing to use their preferred manner of address"

here you have hit on a valid objection. if you think the style guide is itself evidence of a liberal bias, okay. i can see that argument. it's just not valid to contend, as you and sphere have, that the style guide was not followed by the author of the article referenced.

it's also clear (to me at least) that you and sphere are complaining because your own obvious cultural bias is not honored by the author (or the style guides). i acknowledge that your bias (as i glean your bias from what you write) is legitimate. i might not agree with it, but it's a legitimate view. your argument should be that the style guides have overshot the pace of popular culture, and has adopted the posture of liberal culture.

instead you haven't challenged the rules in the style guides, rather you've tried out the tortured argument that the journalist didn't follow the style guide. i don't know why you're doing that, but why did sphere do that?

the only reason why anyone would use this much weaker argument is if the goal was to undercut the contention that the press is professional (see the thread title and the original post), that it follows rules, that it has best practices, that it is legitimate, that what it does is important, imperative and weighty. attacking the press as an institution places the arguer in league with trump in his attack on the legitimacy of the press (whether the arguer sees himself in league with trump or not).

and this is the problem with conservatism today. you want to pull down liberalism, but not journalism. trump wants to pull down journalism. this is a conundrum for you. (but not for me.)

i don't suspect you see it that the same way i do.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Interesting take, since the style guide specifically refers to "transgender man" and "transgender woman" instead of requiring reporters to refer to them as "men" and "women." Not sure how you got from A to B, but I guess you see what you want to see.


If, by cultural bias, you mean "biological reality," then sure.


The painfully obvious reason sphere brought this up was to get your take on whether it is appropriate for a reporter to inject personal ideological stance in an article as opposed to sticking with objective reporting. Unfortunately, we can't even reach agreement on whether or not this particular statement was objectively written or not.


Unfortunately for you, I'm neither particularly conservative nor liberal, and I have no desire to pull down either one. I know you like to ascribe those types of motivations to people so you can feel as if you've successfully trivialized their points of view. That's a personal weakness you should work on.


No shit.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

isn't this exactly what you and sphere are doing? it seems that way. neither of you are adhering to the principle of charity ( not that many people do around here and im definitely guilty from time to time) and assuming the reporter is using the term boy as advocacy journalism rather than out of respect and guidelines.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I'm not making that charitable estimation, for several reasons which have been explained previously.

One, it was not guideline-directed pronoun usage. Two, as used in the sentence, it was divorced from the qualifier transgender. Three, the sentence was gratuitous in that it was used to frame the article from the perspective that there's an obvious injustice because (duh) girls shouldn't have to wrestle boys.

The sentence was written in a way that unambiguously affirms the underlying premise of those guidelines, that girls who believe they are boys are, as a matter of fact, boys. And that's simply not true, in reality. They're transgendered. There is a difference between acquiescing to pronoun usage, which journalists are compelled to do according to these guidelines, for considerations largely motivated by political correctness and, to a lesser degree in my opinion, sensitivities of those affected by transgenderism, and making declarative statements that affirm that premise. The former is expected, while the latter isn't required. Had the sentence included the term transgendered boy, I wouldn't have thought the first thing of it. Because it's an accurate, factual statement, whereas describing a female as boy, minus an immediate qualifier, is not. That's advocacy, and it's not unintentional. Advocates in the LGBTQ community have long used this method to normalize previously stigmatized identities, behaviors, etc. It's not enough to accept transgendered for who they are, because they're still viewed as "other" and that's not an acceptable endpoint. The language has to be changed as to erase any distinction between transgender boys and boys, and transgender girls and girls.

This isn't conspiracy talk, or some thinly veiled attack on transgendered people. It's how advocacy is done on these issues, and it's been their M.O. for some time now. To be crystal clear, I have no issue with transgendered people, LGBT, or anyone who lives a lifestyle different from my own. I think you know this about me, given my history on the forum. And I think my opinion on those issues should be immaterial to the question that I asked, because it actually is immaterial to whether or not a journalist is playing it down the middle, or revealing bias in their reporting.

You haven't addressed my question about Dolezal. Should a reporter make an assertion of fact that she is, in reality, black, because of how she self-identifies?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I see your point clearly and I'm an idiot.

What doses that make slowveganman?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

As sphere explained, the issue here is fairly clear. The reporter was either objectively reporting facts, or not. Motivation might be personal ideology, might be pressure from an editor, might be company guidelines, etc. The guidelines simply do not seem to justify the declarative statement made by the reporter, so respect for the guidelines is not a reasonable interpretation for the way he reported. It's not charitable or overly stingy; it's just an observation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

State champ again.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Rats, saw the start of this thread and thought Duffy was back. Then I saw the date.

---

I miss YaHey

Saw that story this morning as well. We represent many school districts around the state, so this issue has been addressed. I certainly sympathize with all parties. On the one hand, Beggs is only doing what is required by him. It is his not his decision to wrestle in the girls division. On the other hand, Beggs is taking T and, regardless of the dosage, it is providing an advantage over the other competitors.

Beggs petitioned to fight in the boys division. Personally, I think he should be allowed to do so in this case (note I said "THIS" case). Beggs' transition from female to male affords him an advantage over female wrestlers.

Now, if we were going the other way, it may be a different argument. If Beggs was transitioning from male to female, and not on heavy hormone therapy, and pre-op, it may be "unfair" to allow Beggs to fight females.

I dunno. It is a tough debate and I truly feel for all involved.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I believe it was Bleacher Report that reported that she did not pursue the issue of wrestling boys all the way to the top authority, but reports are conflicting on that point.

Regardless, she is competing against other female athletes in full knowledge of the testosterone and strength advantage, in a sport where it can be the deciding advantage. Her deemphasis of that point only reinforces it.

I empathize with her in that her options are limited and limiting, but it doesn't change the fact that she's putting her own self interests above those of the other female athletes who are competing without the use of performance enhancing drugs. That's poor sportsmanship, any way you look at it.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I don't remember the specifics of the original story, but is there a reason why this person is being allowed to compete while using what I have to assume is a banned performance enhancing substance?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

There is a caveat to the rule making an exception if the substance is prescribed by a healthcare provider for a legitimate medical purpose. The rules committee deemed this usage to fall within that exception.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The article I read said because it's prescribed by a doctor it's allowed.

You have to wonder how they would rule on a male taking prescribed testosterone if his serum levels were well beyond the normal high end value.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I recall a story from years ago involving a Texas high school athlete who was taking a steroid for a pituitary issue (I believe) and a bunch of controversy over it. Ultimately, the doc certified he "needed" it, so, it was permitted. But, many claimed it elevated his endurance level as a side-effect, which docs said it could.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

X2... Miss some of the banned..

Noticed in one story that mentioned he had signed with a small college to be on the men's wrestling team. I'm curious as to whether he will still be allowed to take testosterone once in the ranks of college sports. Dose USADA or WADA have any governance over colleges or would they fall under NCAA anti-doping rules. I'm generally curious as I have no idea what the answer is.

NCAA Policy on Transgender Student-Athlete Participation
The following policies clarify participation of transgender student-athletes undergoing hormonal treatment for gender transition:
1. A trans male (FTM) student-athlete who has received a medical exception for treatment with testosterone for diagnosed Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for purposes of NCAA competition may compete on a men’s team, but is no longer eligible to compete on a women’s team without changing that team status to a mixed team.
2. A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.

Any transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatment related to gender transition may participate in sex-separated sports activities in accordance with his or her assigned birth gender.
• A trans male (FTM) student-athlete who is not taking testosterone related to gender transition may participate on a men’s or women’s team.
• A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.

LINK: Transgender policy approved - press release, September 13, 2011.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

That seems reasonable. There's the question of long-term benefits of testosterone use for muscle development that extend beyond the one year prohibition, but beyond that, fair enough.

Completely at odds with what she's doing at the high school level, though.

Edit: I misread the first time through. It's hard to imagine one year of testosterone suppression in a male in any way leveling the playing field for competition against females.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W