Okay, so several valid reasons and I'm not sure how to put this without annoying you again, but... it just doesn't seem like it should go past "call them sisters now," unless it's an LGBT-oriented magazine, in which case I wouldn't say it shouldn't be news, because I know how important it is to have people who you identify with (there ain't a lot of straight guys who are apparently more attractive to straight men than straight women, I'll tell you that much), even though I think it's grossly overestimated these days. It's just I dunno... I'd be pretty pissed if the internet was suddenly covered in pix of me wearing a speedo, y'know? Let'em call a press conference if they want (though it could be considered self-centered).KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Well the music duo Tegan and Sara (the "Everything is Awesome" gals) are twins, both are gay and both are successful so the odds aren't as improbable as you may think. Still it's great to see that both of the Wachowskis had the courage to come out as trans, let's just hope that their next film is better than their last one (long shot I know).KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I think it's more that they just don't want a big deal made out of it than necessarily that they're trying to keep it a secret. Every interview and piece you run into end up focusing on the fact that you're not naturally the sex you're presenting as.Saelune said:
I wouldn't agree with that. How one uses the information is also pretty important, and the Mail has a history of using this kind of information as the basis for hit-pieces.Lightknight said:
I'll just say that I've got quite a lot of experience with the Daily Mail, and would speedily discount the possibility that the journalist intended to get her perspective and present it sensitively. That would be a colossal break of character for the paper. Were it another paper, I may not be so cynical.Lightknight said:
Well, we don't know how open she was being. We know her workmates knew, that's about all. She may have been very discreet about her identity outside of that sphere.Happyninja42 said:
I didn't say it was unethical for purple hat picture to be published. There's vital context here; gender identity presents an extremely sensitive time in somebody's life. Publishing this information is far more likely to have drastic consequences than an innocuous purple hat (however trendy it may be).Happyninja42 said:
Well Lilly wasn't closeted so much as she'd gone as stealth as possible until she was sure she was ready to come out. She was forced to come out before she was ready because of a shit right-wing tabloid rag was gonna use the information to demonize her. It's unreasonable to expect people to come out before they're ready, celebrity, or not, they're still people dealing with their own issues in their own way. It's not right to hold someone to a completely different standard just because they're a public figure, as in being a celebrity. I'd much rather a celebrity come out at their own pace, if they come out at all, rather than seeing them get forced out when they're unwilling. Especially because it's situations like that which can lead to people taking their own lives. Celebrity, or not, this sort of thing is a personal choice for anyone, one that's really not anyone else's business, even after the person comes out.Saelune said:
I wouldn't say that you annoyed me there, or with this last post either. At any rate, I was just explaining that there's a public fascination on both sides for these sorts of subjects. That fascination makes it extremely difficult for even non-celebrity folk to not be outed and harassed, it's magnitudes worse for someone who is a celebrity. There are people who wish to use the information to attack a person, others who have good intentions... When it comes to GSM folk, a lot of people refuse to respect our personal boundaries. Why do think us trans folk get so upset when people ask about our surgical status?Jack Action said:
Well I wasn't saying the odds were impossible, in fact it was inevitable for a pair of successful trans siblings to come out eventually. It's just a series of uncommon life experiences lining up in such a way, especially with a pair as successful and famous as the Wachowskis, that it was really unexpected.The Jovian said:
I disagree. Plenty of people can have their lives ruined by coming out, so regardless what effect they may or may not have on the LGBT community over all, no one should feel obligated to martyr themself "for the cause", especially if they don't feel ready yet.Saelune said:
Oddly enough, I have known people in the LGBTQ community who basically held this exact position. I got into a debate with a friend online about this. He is a fairly open gay rights person, and has made a point to travel the globe as part of a paper for his degree, discussing the representation of LGBTQ from country to country. And he pretty much said that people who are celebrities are basically asking for it by the nature of their lifestyle, and so they should come out, because they could be a role model to others.FirstNameLastName said:
Yeah, I'm not unfamiliar with that view, and I too have seen it espoused elsewhere. It just seems so dehumanizing to view people by their utility to the collective and disregard their own rights and desire, especially since some people can be extremely hostile to anyone under the LGBT umbrella.Happyninja42 said:
Right, we don't know how open she was being. But we have been discussing two opposite scenarios in this thread. From what you said, or at least how it seemed to me the way you phrased it, that any situation where the individual didn't declare it first, to report said information is unethical on the other parties part. Though I would say that openly presenting yourself in public is pretty much declaring it publicly.Silvanus said:
I'm confident based on other posts of yours I've seen over the years that you are aware I was using my Purple Hatness as a neutral example for the discussion. Obviously fashion is not the same as gender identity, but I was trying to describe scenarios about a very volatile subject, using a frame of reference that would hopefully beSilvanus said:
Well the biggest drivers of suicide amongst trans folk are: The inability to transition, especially medically. Losing the support of friends and families. Losing one's job and/or being evicted from their homes for being trans, this is also paired with the fact that in most of the US trans folk can also be denied housing and employment opportunities for being trans.zelda2fanboy said:
Sure, the more I hear about the publication the less I like. But all we know from the interaction is that a guy wanted to interview her and get her word on the whole thing. Unless this is the same guy that spun previous stories then I really don't know. Do good articles ever come out of the publication? For a paper that's around 100 years it'd almost have to have something relevant. But that's me being presumptive that length of time surviving equates to some degree of quality. Unless you read it regularly, then maybe the only times you hear about what another publication did will be negative? I don't recall ever reading an article about another publication doing something good.Silvanus said:
I'm not sure that's correct. Why is that their right and by what standard are you establishing this power as an unalienable right?
That's totally possible, I have literally no experience with the publication so I fully accept my unfortunate position of ignorance on the topic. I just don't see why they would need to interview her if they were just going to run a hit piece anyways. If you know she's transgendered and are just planning a hit piece then why go through the trouble of setting up an interview? I mean, I get that you could be completely right here but the interaction seemed different than what I'd expect.
If that were the case then both Happyninja and I would probably agree that foregoing reporting on it would be the industry standard just like what they do in most instances of homosexuality back when it was a problem for people if they came out. Still, a male actor kissing a male lover in public would still hit the news no matter what they held back on prior when it wasn't publicly expressed.
While I completely understand this on a deeply personal level (having watched my transgender husband come out to friends and ultimately be abandoned by most of them for starting to present as a him), I still think if done in public that it is on the clear side of ethics from a journalist perspective. My hope would be that now that this information is out that Lily can now just be Lily and stop having to hide. I hope she gets the support she needs to get through this transition in a healthy manner.
That's one way of looking at it. "The QWachowskis" also sounds better in my mind than "Wachowski siblings."Happyninja42 said:
In fairness, I double checked simply because they could have reported it wrong. Seen a lot of bad reporting on this.
About the nly thing I liked from the original Matrix was the novelty of the visuals. I found the plot lame, the action mostly just okay, the characters bad, and the actors uncharismatic. Well, minus Fishburne and Weaving. I don't know, it gets kind f uncomfortable ragging on them right now though, because people often use "I don't like what they do" to justify why it's okay to discriminate against someone who's a minority or the like. Their talent (or lack of) doesn't really impact their gender identity.
Yeah, was kinda posting on a lag this morning and afternoon. Loaded up the page at least several minutes before I hit reply.
As I said, there are levels of publicity. I don't hide my sexuality from my friends or co-workers. It would still be a shitty thing to do to splash it over a tabloid. That would make me feel tremendously open and vulnerable, but I can't speak for anyone else.Happyninja42 said:
The public can comment on what they like, but we know that tabloid sensationalism goes further than that. The Mail know, too, which is why they do things like this.Happyninja42 said:
Unfortunately, using legality as the bar for print-media ethics in the UK is really using no bar at all. The only existing complaints watchdog here is toothless, and operates only with the sufferance of the newspapers themselves. Newspapers can do almost whatever they want, here, and be declared squeaky clean. That's the only real legal mechanism in place, and it doesn't do its job.Happyninja42 said:
I do actually read it regularly, as a result of knowing somebody who takes it (yet doesn't agree with it most of the time). Fair articles have come out of it, but never on issues of sexuality or gender identity.Lightknight said:
It's their right because it's their person, and because tremendous harm-- both mental and physical-- can be done if it's not respected.Lightknight said:
Well, I'd guess they need some basis for the article, and were quote-mining.Lightknight said:
Suicide also doesn't have to be a rational option. We're talking about an emotionally charged issue and emotionally charged outcomes.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
[/quote]Happyninja42 said:
Would be quicker for it to seem normal if famous people who the mainstream public can see and hopefully come to understand would not be so secretive. I can understand wanting it to not become the "focus" of who they are, but not discussing it doesn't help. Its easier for people to have positive examples that humanize it for them. When its just "those people" its easier to hate them.Lightknight said:
Considering it has happened. 100%.DudeistBelieve said:
Well it's also important to remember this: These things are personal and it's unreasonable to demand people come out before they're ready. They don't owe the community anything, celebrity or not, especially not to out themselves just because it might help the image of GSM folk, especially not before they're ready to do so.Saelune said:
Fixed that slight error for you, hopefully so people won't make a big deal over it. It's unwise to give a singular gender to a group of people who may be either gender. Also you refer to people in the way in which they identify, even if you're talking about a them past-tense in time before they transitioned. Trans women are always women, trans men are always men, etc... It's also kinda important to remember that there are trans men as well as trans women. Not trying to be mean, or a smart-ass here either, just clearing this up before someone gets angry over it.WolfThomas said: