I have written before about the use of the terms transgender and transsexual in headlines. In many instances (far too many), the press goes after these words as if they were gold – and in a way, they are, if you want to sensationalize your news and get as much traffic as possible to your site.
We live in an era in which news sources of all kinds are competing for views. And we also live in an era in which the general public, for some reason, is obsessed with trans people.
They can’t get enough of us – on reality shows, talk shows, and in sensationalized news headlines. (Too bad the same isn’t true for dates. I’m still waiting for the general public – at least the smokin’ hot members of it – to give me a call.)
But because the culture seems so completely enamored of us, at least news-wise, we (and particularly trans women) tend to show up in headlines when being trans has absolutely nothing to do with the story – “Transsexual woman among survivors of plane crash” or “Transgender woman robbed outside of bank.”
We also tend to show up when it isn’t even a story at all – “Transsexual woman runs red light” or “Transgender woman shops at mall.” And those are the good ones – when they actually get the gender right.
It usually doesn’t matter. The trans part is just there to get readers, viewers, or clicks. But sometimes it does matter, and in my opinion, it matters with the story of Rep. Chris Lee.
Now-former Rep. Chris Lee, a married-with-children U.S. Congressman who resigned when his story came out, was caught trolling craigslist for female companionship – something that we would prefer our married representatives avoid, especially when they have more pressing problems on Capitol Hill. But it seems that, in several ads, Lee was specifically looking for trans women, or what he termed “passable TS/CD,” as reported by Gawker.
Regardless of Gawker’s extremely annoying headline (The Craigslist Congressman and the Crossdressing Prostitute) and use of the term “transvestite” in the article, it matters that Lee was looking for trans women. Other news sources picked up the story and reported it under various headlines, but all used some form of “trans” (usually “transgender”).
It matters because Lee is a moderately conservative Republican (and it would matter just the same if he were a conservative Democrat) who has not been known to support LGBT rights. He received a zero on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard (not my favorite organization, but one with the potential to provide helpful information).
It matters because he is searching for sexual interactions with the very people that he would apparently not support in matters of employment or other rights. It matters for the same reason that it mattered that anti-gay minister George Rekers got discovered with an escort he found on rentboy.com – good enough to sleep with, not good enough for basic human rights?
The other side to this, of course, is that the media continues to sensationalize trans people, and particularly trans women, through these headlines and stories. I’m not naive enough to think that the press is actually becoming noble and trying to demonstrate Lee’s hypocrisy – this is all done for views, clicks, and readers.
But in this case, I am in favor of it. I would prefer that it be respectful and accurate – unfortunately, that’s still asking too much, and these two qualifiers are missing in much of the coverage. Nevertheless, I think it’s important that those who seek to hurt us, either by direct action or inaction, are exposed for what they are.
Of course, I am not the one being negatively affected by it. Trans women are the ones who suffer the repercussions.
Thoughts?
“…good enough to sleep with, not good enough for basic human rights?”
Exactly (said sarcastically).
Darn. I should have been checking out Craigslist for horny Congress critters.
I know. See what you’ve been missing by not hanging out on craigslist? On the other hand … maybe not so much.
Oh the hypocrisy . . . alive and well and running rampant in government.
Can’t say I’m happy that we’re considered so exotic we’re guaranteed to spice up the news and sell newspapers, but . . . as long as we are getting unwanted attention, maybe we can find a way to use it to our advantage . . . ? Just saying.
Oops! Can you delete this one?
Oh the hypocrisy . . . alive and well and running rampant in government.
Can’t say I’m happy that we’re considered so exotic we’re guaranteed to spice up the news and sell newspapers, but . . . as long as we are getting unwanted attention, maybe we can find a way to use it to our advantage . . . ? Just saying, maybe we can somehow turn it around to help us obtain some of those rights these moralistic hypocrites try to deny us.
And speaking of negative attention, thanks for not printing the much-posted barechested pic of Mr. Lee (ugh! put it away, dude). :p
At issue here is not if we are reported on within the story but how. In this case it is definately news worthy about how a “family values” congressman surfs craigslist to meet trans women. The question becomes “how are we viewed within the story”?
We should be viewed as people caught up in Lee’s hypocrocy but I fear that instead it will be a matter “how weird to like one of them”. Outside of our community I have not read one single article that points out, let alone focuses on, the hypocracy of his actions. That is the reason why people like former “wide stance” senator Larry Craig is getting back into the political arena. People don’t remember the hypocrocy involved in their acts. It’s the same with Gingrich and his 3 marriages and reported affair running on “family values” platform
I’m not sure if this is what you were getting at, but it’s interesting to note that it would be an entirely different story had he just solicited “women” and not “transwomen” – a truth which continues to stab an open wound that “trans” equals weird, and most importantly, that a transwoman is not a woman.
Eroticizing notwithstanding, I’d argue it’s still best to keep the “trans” part of the headline, because sadly, in the eyes of the law, a transwoman is still not the same as a woman, and we must use whatever they throw us to reveal the hypocrisy of this.
I don’t think there are any heroes in this story. Everyone involved – from the Congress Critter to the sensationalism seeking journalists – are operating from bad motives. None of them think of trans women as anything like “normal” human beings deserving of the most basic standards of human dignity. They just want to use us – the Congress Critter to get his rocks off, the journalists to sell copy. We’re just things to them. Not people.
There might be some journalist out there who treated the topic with enough sensitivity that he or she doesn’t deserve to be painted with such a broad brush. But if such a person exists I haven’t seen it in the reporting of this story to date.
Congress Critter – I love that term. The only other time I’ve heard it is reading Jim Hightower.
It’s because he has an anti-LGBT record that it would be worthy of reporting.
But that in no way excuses the way it’s being reported, and where the emphasis is being put. Because he’s not being lambasted for being a hypocrite — he’s being lambasted for violating the rules of “traditional marriage” and for being attracted to someone trans.
To me, that’s a bigger fail, and one that has negative repercussions far beyond Mr. Lee — demeaning trans women and all who love them.
Thanks for all your comments. I agree – the biggest problem is the way in which stories like this are being reported. I think it’s absolutely necessary to expose the hypocritical nature of people like this, which is why I think it is important to point out that he was searching for trans women (in other cases, it would not be necessary at all).
Regardless, the media is still sensationalizing that aspect. Their not reporting it to show what a hypocrite he is. They just want to views, and “trans” gets them the views.
One of the aspects of good reporting used to be to analyze things – to help readers see and understand the issues that they might be missing. Now, it’s just important to get clicks to the story.
With the disappearance of print media, which allowed for real analysis of why a certain aspect of a story was important, we just get the sensationalist aspects. We don’t get the in-depth coverage that gives something depth and meaning and allows readers to learn. It’s a shame.
While this exploitation is general true, often it is a factor of the person and issue themselves.
In the past year, three different mainstream reporters, one from the NY Times, have done more than a total of nine stories featuring myself as part of our ongoing quest for religious recognition of our 501c3 incorporated religious body against the bigoted town that refuses to recognize that. All three are well aware of my personal history and that our home started as a project to provide a place to bootstrap for newly transitioned women………and it was only mentioned twice in passing.
Why? because when asked by them I replied that putting a trans face on the case would detract from the real issue, religious bigotry.
I am a woman, they respected that unlike so many of the so called trans communities.
It’s great that the press listened to you and recognized what you were saying. It sounds like it would have detracted from the real story, and they were able to get that, thanks to you. Sometimes it works.
Gosh, and here I thought that I was just a perfectly normal woman. I had no idea that I was in any way exotic. Perhaps I’ll have to take a survey the next time I’m at the Y in the locker room where the other women mysteriously see me as just another woman.
Well, the world according to Chris Lee seems a little screwed up. The less people really know about something, the more exotic it becomes, and the picture in their head is not reality!