Comments on: The Washington Post Cross-Dressing Shoplifting Story Misfires

By: Sexist Comments of the Week: Transgender Shoplift Edition - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:01:46 +0000

[...] on the Washington Post’s gender treatment for a couple of transgender shoplifting suspects (Washington Post Cross-Dressing Shoplifting Story Misfires; Transgender Shoplifting Story’s Absurd Corrections) inspired confusion, transphobia, and [...]

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:07:33 +0000

Who the hell cares?! This "paper" has become so hipsterish and PC.

By: Kamantha

Kamantha — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:51:19 +0000

This is what is wrong with the Washington Post and why I stopped reading the Post. Poor or just flat out incorrect reporting, leaving out information, and one sided editorials (ie: anything about Fenty or Rhee).

By: Transgender Shoplifting Story Inspires Absurd Corrections - The Sexist - Washington City Paper

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:03:56 +0000

[...] Washington shows what happens when news outlets fail to confirm the correct gender identity of their subjects before publication. The outlet has just posted another story about the two shoplifting suspects who [...]

By: Emily H.

Emily H. — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:19:46 +0000

A lot of ill-informed people have shown up to point out that all trans women are just "dudes in dresses"; it just further demonstrates the need for pieces like these. As Hess points out, the Washington Post itself agrees that trans people should be identified by the gender they identify with, so they've contradicted their own policy.

By: Magnetic Crow

Magnetic Crow — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:11:51 +0000

Looks like you have your 'Sexist/Cissexist/Transphobic comments of the week' already, Amanda. And it's only Monday!

I agree with you 100%. This was INCREDIBLY unprofessional of the Washington Post to publish, and just serves to further marginalize one of the most vulnerable minorities. They'd better keep the suspects anonymous after this. If they don't, they will literally be putting their lives in danger.

Shame on whichever editors let that one through. :(

By: Much ado 'bout nothin'

Much ado 'bout nothin' — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:22:46 +0000

Shoplifters get caught is not news. Shoplifters get shot IS news. And so, when the police identify the shoplifters as female, and they turn out to have penises, that's something that "advances the story," as they say in the news biz. Not a correction, but a new fresh lede for the story. That's how the news biz works.

The news biz, Amanda. Learn about it. It can help you gain perspective.

By: Victor

Victor — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:41:27 +0000

They made a correction. So? The first article was genetically and phenotypically incorrect. What if these are just cross-dressing guys? Is it okay to mis-identify guys who identify as males, but not okay to misidentify guys who identify as females? I call BS.

Would you prefer that no crime report be made until
1 - a medical examiner looks down each individuals pants/skirt
2 - a full genetic workup is performed so the exact genetic makeup can be presented
3 - the suspect is interviewed and gives a full debriefing on their gender identity as well as past gender identities

Wow... no info will get out.
The article is factually correct. The suspect is physically male and dressed in the manner of the opposite gender (therefore "cross-dressing") there isn't ANY assumption as to what the individual's sexual identification is. This appears to be "just the facts ma'am"....

By: Leann

Leann — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:40:06 +0000

The "1000 words" Amanda devoted to this, do not appear to have been enough, if the other commentors still don't get it. While YOU may be glued to going by the 'Y' chomosome, Ms. Hess accurately discusses the 'style book' on how journalism is to correctly address issues like this. Her points are very sound. And by the way, many women have XY chromosomes, but they suffer from androgen insensitivity, which is perhaps what that South African althelete has. Most of these women live their lives NEVER KNOWING they are not XX, but XY!! It's only when they are tested or try to have children that this intersex condition exists.

By: Amanda Hess

Amanda Hess — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:30:48 +0000

Actually, I'm pretty clear in the piece when I say that that specific information as to the gender of the subjects does NOT exist, and that's why the article should never have been written. At this point, it's just a guess. And newspapers shouldn't publish guesswork as fact, especially when it's offensive to large groups of people.

By: Victor

Victor — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:53:14 +0000

ummm wait. if they're both drunk and have sex with each other, who is raping whom by default??? I MUST KNOW!!! On more rational thoughts, I'm going to guess that the two suspects are not answering questions from the media right now. So how would the author get this special privvy information which you seem so willing to assume exists? I'm betting that assuming they are cross dressers is playing the odds pretty good. Given standard demographic spread, he's much more likely to get it right. The suspects are genetically male, phenotypically male, dressing as women. While I'm sure it is very important to them whether they self-identify as men or women, it is only one facet of their description. Self identification does not change genetic or phenotypical presentation.

By: kza

kza — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:18:23 +0000

The real story here is that if these two were dating, a lesbian crime wave is upon us. If they are in fact women and not just dressing that way to avoid being identified corrrectly had they alluded being arrested.

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:15:18 +0000

Thank you for writing this. The distinction between sex and gender is one that far too few people recognize, but you'd hope that major media outlets would at least try to get it right (it doesn't take much research to see that cross-dressing isn't the same as being transgendered). If they don't, they deserve to be called out on it. And the fact that they can get it wrong probably means that the general public doesn't have a good grasp of the issue either, which makes your detailed explanation all the more important.

By: Victor

Victor — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:57:23 +0000

Amanda... you have to have a Y chromosome to have a penis. Only the rarest of genetic disorders (about 10-15k in the entire nation) will present as male a genetically XX individual. The possibility that two of them are in the same car, shoplifting, is ridiculous.

By: Hondo Howard

Hondo Howard — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:37:41 +0000

What an idiotic waste of space. For all the dumb stuff the Post does, you wrote 1000 words about this?

By: Amanda Hess

Amanda Hess — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:51:43 +0000

How do you know they had Y chromosomes?

By: Gregory A Butler

Gregory A Butler — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:35:01 +0000

Cut out the politically correct bullshit - these were men in dresses. They may have had a mental delusion that they were "women" - but they had penises, and testicles, and Y chromosomes, and that makes them MEN, no matter how many skirts or wigs they put on!