Outing a transgender's previous identity if they had legal issues before transition.

[repoman]

I was reading about Gamergate again and I saw some general allegations that Brianna Wu was born as John Flynt. Supposedly he was a bit of a strange guy (Brianna also comes across as a bit strange - but most anti-gg's don't) and had a protection against him by his college newspaper.

Let's assume (it very well may not be) for the moment that this is true. Does Brianna changing genders make it harder for people to challenge her credibility than if she still a man or born as a genetic female? Should a transgender person have the right to not have the birth identity as general public information?

 

[gmbteach]

The revealing of the birth gender is purely up to them. If they want to admit that they have made the extraordinary leap from one gender to another - than go for it. If, OTH, they are ashamed of their childhood as a girl or boy, they can conceal it. Considering that such a step is usually as a result of a lifetime of speculation, consideration, questioning and soul searching, why should we put them through any more crap?

To me, its the same if someone announces they are now homosexual. WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK? Are we going to discriminate against them because they may have had heterosexual sex?

To everyone on here, I am a female. To my family I am a female. I should be accepted as such. Just because I have been 'speyed/fixed' (as my ex called it) and so in the animal kingdom I could be classed as an it, it doesn't mean I am any less a female.

Maybe I am misinterpreting the OP. Maybe not. I will ask this: If/when a person goes through transgender surgery, they don't change their DNA so what difference does it make? They can still be identified, can't they?

 

[repoman]

I will give a hypothetical. Let's say that a transgender person had either a criminal record or very solid allegations of wrongdoing before a transition, but nothing afterwards. Then fresh allegations of similar actions have surfaced again. Would a news organization be likely to not report on the story because some take offense at outing transgendered people?

 

[Axulus]

I will give a hypothetical. Let's say that a transgender person had either a criminal record or very solid allegations of wrongdoing before a transition, but nothing afterwards. Then fresh allegations of similar actions have surfaced again. Would a news organization be likely to not report on the story because some take offense at outing transgendered people?

Why would you have to report the sex change? Why not just say that person X (whatever name they currently go by) was accused of such and such conduct Y years ago by such and such person. If the sex change is an important and relevant detail to the story, then sure, report it. If it is completely irrelevant, then I see no reason to.

 

[gmbteach]

I will give a hypothetical. Let's say that a transgender person had either a criminal record or very solid allegations of wrongdoing before a transition, but nothing afterwards. Then fresh allegations of similar actions have surfaced again. Would a news organization be likely to not report on the story because some take offense at outing transgendered people?

Why would you have to report the sex change? Why not just say that person X (whatever name they currently go by) was accused of such and such conduct Y years ago by such and such person. If the sex change is an important and relevant detail to the story, then sure, report it. If it is completely irrelevant, then I see no reason to.

I agree ^^^^

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, if you say someone was once accused of something, that's not an issue. If you say that they were accused of something while a different gender, all you're doing is pointing out the sex change and likely doing so in order to generate an ick response.

 

[Derec]

Why would you have to report the sex change? Why not just say that person X (whatever name they currently go by) was accused of such and such conduct Y years ago by such and such person. If the sex change is an important and relevant detail to the story, then sure, report it. If it is completely irrelevant, then I see no reason to.

Because "John Flynt" is obviously not a woman's name, so the sex change thing would come out anyway.
However, in most cases you can tell so i doesn't really matter.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does Brianna changing genders

Did she really change gender? Or just plumbing?

When i look around the office, here, i can classify people as male or female, but i rarely see their actual tits or dicks, much less their genetic profile. Most of my gender cues come from how they present themselves. Not how society presents them or how biology stamped them. They choose to wear dress or slacks, boots or heels, makeup or aftershave.

The few people i've known who felt their gender was not the one that matched their bodies have presented as the gender they felt was natural. And some went out and acquired the plumbing they were more comfortable with.

If Flynt thought she was a girl strongly enough to go through surgery, therapy, wardrobe shift, name change, and whatever else, I wouldn't challenge her claim that she's a gurl.

There's nothing i am that i've put THAT much effort into becoming. She wants it that hard, she can be she.

 

[dx713]

Just treat it like a name change.
"was indicted under a previous name".

You don't need to explain more unless ordered by a judge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will give a hypothetical. Let's say that a transgender person had either a criminal record or very solid allegations of wrongdoing before a transition, but nothing afterwards. Then fresh allegations of similar actions have surfaced again. Would a news organization be likely to not report on the story because some take offense at outing transgendered people?

Why would you have to report the sex change? Why not just say that person X (whatever name they currently go by) was accused of such and such conduct Y years ago by such and such person. If the sex change is an important and relevant detail to the story, then sure, report it. If it is completely irrelevant, then I see no reason to.

Anyone trying to verify the claim will fail to do so and thus take it as false.

Person X (at the time known as Z) was accused of such and such conduct.

- - - Updated - - -

Just treat it like a name change.
"was indicted under a previous name".

You don't need to explain more unless ordered by a judge.

That would also work, although it's harder to verify.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why would you have to report the sex change? Why not just say that person X (whatever name they currently go by) was accused of such and such conduct Y years ago by such and such person. If the sex change is an important and relevant detail to the story, then sure, report it. If it is completely irrelevant, then I see no reason to.

Anyone trying to verify the claim will fail to do so and thus take it as false.

Person X (at the time known as Z) was accused of such and such conduct.

- - - Updated - - -

Just treat it like a name change.
"was indicted under a previous name".

You don't need to explain more unless ordered by a judge.

That would also work, although it's harder to verify.

I agree with Loren's points. Using their current name would be false information, using something vague like "under a different name" would be accurate but too vague to verify. Another issue is that most viewers will assume they were the same as the current gender/sex, thus the incomplete info leads to the false inference about the gender/sex of the person that committed those crimes. Sometimes that false inference may not matter, but it might. Then there is the issue of other people similarly wronged by that former person. Such news stories are often ways in which other victims come forward. Covering up their prior name and gender robs those potential victims from that opportunity.

Depending upon the crime and the assessed probability of guilt, it could be more ethical to out them.