Trans fact

A person's private medical history is just that PRIVATE. It had absolutely NO bearing on the case. The press was merely engaging in sensationalism to boost ratings/readership. What amazes me is how the press fails to see the link between this crash and people driving distracted because of cell phones and/or texting. It's an epidemic and nobody is doing anything about it. Correction: They have passed laws, but the laws are NOT enforced. Distracted driving, whether in a train or a car, is a rapidly increasing problem.

Gender is not relevant to this story. It's not advocacy to decide that information is not relevant. It's good judgment.

"But gender is different. ... And while Quinn now identifies as a man, his gender still doesn't fit the traditional binary mode of categorization. That's why Quinn defined himself online as "FtM" — female to male — ... If, hypothetically, every Boston journalist agreed not to report this fact, they'd give the Jules Crittendens of the world one less opportunity to rant. But they'd also be suppressing information they usually report — and, through excessive protectiveness, fostering the notion that transsexual status is shameful." Lemme get this right, "Tim Geithner, male, Sec. of the Treasury." That's the way journalists do it? And, since Quinn defines himself as FtM on Craigslist or some board on the net you find that is a "best practices" journalistic standard. "I mean, boss, someone wrote that on a BB I read on the net, why can't can't I use ROTFLMAO in my story?" Or, "Well I blared his gender status not as male like his DL says, but as FtM because I was out there supporting the cause of TG rights?" LOL. The Archdiocese should have hired you to write their PR releases during the recent unpleasantnesses! How disingenuous do you think you can be and people not see it? Evidently, pretty disingenuous.

Funfact, you lost me there. What's the connection between 1. saying it's okay for the press to report that Quinn is trans because gender is a standard journalistic descriptor and 2. defending the sexual abuse of kids by priests?

Just that, Adam, your ability to justify in a rather torturous fashion should be perfect for such a task as 2.

From rmy reading of on-line articles, Georgia Quinn had the bad driving record (and wrote a bad check to pay a ticket's fine).  Was Georgia's driving record looked at by the MBTA or did they hire Aiden Quinn who had a clean sheet?  That's where the trans fact seems relevant to me.

The only reason you think it isn't offensive to be identified by a former gender is that you don't understand someone who doesn't fit the gender binary. What about a person who was born a Catholic, but who becomes a Jew, and then commits an error that results in harm and cost to others, and the press finds out about the person's change of religion and somehow equates this change with fact of the error: He's really a Catholic, and you all know Catholics tend to be negligent or something.  Blame it on the pronouns, but that doesn't fit, either, since Quinn uses masculine pronouns, and although he has publicly acknowledged that he is FTM, that's equivalent to acknowledging his medical history, which is his busines to do, but does not reflect every aspect of himself. You might call it a "gender history" to make it easier to equate with a racial history, because when most of us look at another person we cannot identify their racial or ethnic history, and unless a person chooses to reveal it, it should be none of our business. The only reason some people find Quinn's gender history interesting is because of prejudice against people whose gender history is different from their own, or from what they understand as 'normal'. It's just another point on which to judge a person harshly, a way of having something to hold over the other person to make them feel less-than, and their critic to feel more-than. Give it up!  Quinn's transgender or transsexual status has nothing to do with his driving, and it's not news!

Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums. Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this information was picked up.
Now, Aiden's transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided.
Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public: If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then use female pronouns and descriptors. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. This would be an incorrect usage of gender descriptors.
When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If there's a possibility that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting has nothing to do with advocacy. It has to do with reporting the facts correctly--in this case, the gender of the person as he identifies now--and giving people relevant information in a way that minimizes harm to the people you are reporting about.
You want to make sure the public knows that a person in your story doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know this kind of information? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in one of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change—to go from one box to the other.
Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting—possibly even traumatizing—and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and very sensitive.
I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by the organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence on this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media.
Even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to transgender people (for instance, if a pattern of favoring transpeople over other minorities in MBTA's hiring practices has come to light) and one could no longer responsibly refer to Aiden's "minority status" in general terms, there still is absolutely no need to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here.  It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.

Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums.Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this informatin was picked up.
Now, his transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided. Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public. If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then refer to her as female. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If the possibility exists that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered and verified before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting does not have anything to do with advocacy. It has to do with behaving in a responsible way not only to your public, but to your subjects. You want to make sure the public knows that a person you are writing about doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know that this person is "different"? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in on of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change--to switch from one box to the other. Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting--possibly even traumatizing--and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and sensitive. I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by this organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence of anything like this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media. And even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to Aiden's transgender status, there would still not be a good reason to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here. It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.

Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums.Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this informatin was picked up. Now, his transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided. Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public. If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then refer to her as female. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If the possibility exists that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered and verified before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting does not have anything to do with advocacy. It has to do with behaving in a responsible way not only to your public, but to your subjects. You want to make sure the public knows that a person you are writing about doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know that this person is "different"? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in on of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change--to switch from one box to the other. Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting--possibly even traumatizing--and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and sensitive. I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by this organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence of anything like this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media. And even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to Aiden's transgender status, there would still not be a good reason to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here. It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.

Adam, transgender status is sensitive information. Unless the transperson has willingly disclosed this status to the public and/or it is relevant to the story, it should not be reported. Even though he disclosed this information online, it does not mean he intended it to be circulated by other media. People need to talk about the changes they are going through, and many times they do so online in selected forums.Aiden might have some kind of awareness that his posts could be accessed by outside people, but that they probably wouldn't be. Because of his involvement in a well-publicized accident, this informatin was picked up.
Now, his transition is known to a huge number of people that he doesn't know. He most likely will be a target of hate speech and very possibly, more physically expressed hate crimes. No doubt, he already feels humiliated that his female past has been made public. Most people may not realize that he has probably felt ashamed of his female name his whole life. He finally got rid of it, and now it's "all over the front page"! Are these appropriate and justifiable consequences of his inattentive driving? I think not. I also think this kind of exposure could have been avoided. Handling pronouns and descriptors for transgendered people in an accurate and sensitive way is actually very simple, and it does not, by itself, require withholding relevant information from the public. If a person identifies as male, then refer to him as male; if the identification is female, then refer to her as female. If you happen to know or find out that a different gender was assigned to this person in the past, don't refer to the person in terms of the previous gender in your story about the present. When a person's past is not relevant to the present, it should not be made public, especially when doing so would reveal sensitive information. If the possibility exists that it could be relevant, evidence supporting the relevance should be gathered and verified before making a decision to disclose. Responsible reporting does not have anything to do with advocacy. It has to do with behaving in a responsible way not only to your public, but to your subjects. You want to make sure the public knows that a person you are writing about doesn't fit either of the usual gender boxes? You think that this is the only way to be accurate, to be truthful? You think that the public has a right to know that this person is "different"? Please think about it some more, because this would most likely not be the view held by your average transgender person. It's more likely that this person feels as if he or she does fit in on of these boxes, but just not the one that others have ascribed to him or her. After all, this is pretty much the main reason that people go through a gender change--to switch from one box to the other. Chances are very good that any person whose previous gender you would want to tell the world about was miserable in that gender. Chances are that revisiting that part of their life in a very public way would be very upsetting--possibly even traumatizing--and destructive to their relationships, including those with their employers. And chances are that this person would consider information about their past gender to be private and sensitive. I agree with Carol Ann that the only way Aiden's transgendered status could be relevant to this story is if MBTA knew that he was a bad driver and hired him anyway because he was a member of a minority group recognized by this organization. But conjecture doesn't justify disclosure. Unless and until investigations turn up some kind of hard evidence of anything like this, the transgender issue isn't in play, and it shouldn't have been thrown into the ring by the media. And even if it was found that some kind of "quota abuse" existed and it can be specifically tied to Aiden's transgender status, there would still not be a good reason to print his previous name. Identity fraud is not at issue here. It's a story about an accident for which an inattentive driver will pay dearly enough.

Sorry about all the repeats. It didn't look like it was going in, so I resent it (numerous times!).

"But here's the problem with these calls for silence: asking the reporters who covered the crash to omit any reference to Quinn's sex change is, in essence, a request for journalists to be advocates rather than reporters." This would certainly be true if the role of journalists were to exhaustively report every single fact about a person or event that is in the news. However, in that case, the reporting on this case would be deficient because no information, to my knowledge, was ever provided about the names of Quinn's primary school teachers, his favourite food, his average home electricity usage in kW/h, and a million other things (what about his tonsils and his appendix - in or out?). Does it make journalists "advocates" (pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as objective journalism someplace other than theory) that they omitted these facts? No, it makes them good journalists, who know that their job is to report what's relevant, particularly where the sensitive medical histories of private individuals are concerned. Either a fact contributes to our understanding of an event or it does not. The only reason Quinn is in the news at all is that he crashed a train because his attention was elsewhere. The fact that he transitioned from female to male at some time in the past would not, in itself, justify news coverage. The story, thus, is the crash. In determining what personal information about Quinn incidentally comes out in investigating the crash should be published, it is useful to ask "What does this mean for the accident?" Multiple speeding tickets, for example, could potentially show that a person does not customarily exercise the level of care one expects from the operators of public transportation. The fact that that person is or is not circumcised, likes orange juice with only "some pulp", or ties his shoes in a square not, on the other hand, gives us no new knowledge about the event that justified covering the person in the first place. If one were to mention some such fact (or the fact that a person previously transitioned), on the other hand, the reader will believe that either (a) this fact is somehow relevant to the event (transsexuals shouldn't be operating vehicles or some such nonsense) or (b) the fact is intended to appear relevant. Leaving out lurid irrelevancies doesn't make you an advocate, it makes you a journalist. 

Adam,

Unless you are trans yourself, and given the content and tone of your article I would venture a guess that you are not, you have absolutely no right or privelage to discuss issues of disclosure of trans status.  Much less do you have the right to discuss how disclosure or lack therof may relate to issues of shame or truthful disclosure.  There are several truths about this person.  One is that he is a knucklehead, to put it mildly.  Another is that he has caused quite a bit of pain and suffering, not to mention property damage. 

Another truth is that he is a male.  And that is it.  Whatever history may exist behind that is irrelevant.  When I read print media, yes I do see someone's gender and age listed.  However, I do not see their race, religion, or lending library fine record printed as well.  Your actions are transphobic, sensationalistic and quite honestly somewhat hateful.

I notice that you have an Irish surname.  While I think very little of your journalistic integrity after reading this piece, I certainly would not go so far as to blame it on your potential Irish roots, and whatever stereotypes or misconceptions may come along with it.  Given that you are writing for what is allegedly one of the more progressive "mainstream" publications in metro Boston, I suggest you print a retraction right about now.

Carol Anne,

If "Georgia" had a bad driving record, so would Aiden.  When you change your name, it goes through the courts.  There is a specific name change process which is designed to prevent people from leaving former records, good or bad, behind.  This is not the old west.  Your SS# stays the same, etc.... It's just a name and gender marker that changes.

Adam, so what if he was hired due to quotas.  When was the last time you reported on someone who did a less than stellar job abd who may have benefited from affirmative action, and pointed out that they would have never been hired in the first place without affirmative action?

Doc: I'm "hateful" for suggesting that a portion of the media may not have erred in soberly reporting Quinn's trans status? No one who *isn't* trans should be able to weigh in on this issue? Thanks, but I'll pass on your retraction request.Also, your Irish surname comments are nonsensical. Absolutely nowhere in my column do I suggest that Quinn crashed because he's trans. In fact, I do the exact opposite in my discussion of Jules Crittenden's blog post.

Doc, I meant to add--one of your criticisms strikes me as more fair than the rest, i.e. that as a non-trans individual, I don't have the right to say how much candor about trans status is/isn't good. I'll grant you that my perspective on this topic is that of an outsider's. But I also think that, with *any* identifying characteristic, calls for discrete/sensitive silence can end up reinforcing the very prejudices they've supposed to guard against. And, as indicated above, I have a hard time with the idea that conversations about certain identities and how they're publicly constructed/treated should be restricted to individuals who posess the identities in question.All that said, feel free to contact me if you'd like continue this discussion. I'm at areilly@phx.com. You can also weigh in with a letter to the editor; if you send it to me I'll pass it on to the appropriate parties. 

Adam, I would be interested in your response to the points I made. Or do you only respond to people that attack you? My message is actually well-organized--I just couldn't get the paragraphs to show.
 

Does anyone care about Quinn's private life?  "yawn"