Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
UCSD pays for trans-species project.
forgot to add- Just in case anyone wants to characterize KUSI's decision to cancel Micha Cardenas' scheduled interview at the last minute as some stand against exposing their viewers to the possibility that the subject of transgenderism might come up, or that her choice of clothing was beyond the pale for KUSI's broadcast standards- let me be the first to remind them that KUSI is the local broadcast outlet for the Jerry Springer show, which regularly features the most flamboyant and vile examples of transgendered people for prurient shock value, as well as the Maury Povitch show with it's recurring "Is it a Man or a Woman?" segments that feature parades of female impersonators, drag queens and transsexuals in provocative lingerie instead of conservative attire. The message is quite clear- trannies are perfectly OK on KUSI as long as they shock and titillate- but a transgendered individual who is thoughtful, sober, intelligent, well spoken and who doesn't reinforce the negative stereotypes presented in their other trash TV programming is considered unworthy of a serious news presentation, and must have someone else speak for them.— March 29, 2009 5:47 p.m.
UCSD pays for trans-species project.
Micha- Sadly , this isn't the first time that KUSI news management has shown itself to be less than fair minded or interested in presenting unbiased appraisals of stories touching on gender variance...they have a history of presenting poorly informed people with religionist agendas as "experts" on these subjects, and allowing them to spew ignorant speculation and outright lies as fact while never allowing ANY opposing view or corrections of deliberate misinformation to be heard. In my experience, they don't even make the effort to simply acknowledge via form letter having received communications of their viewers' concerns in these matters, as a matter of public relations goodwill...utterly unprofessional, but then again, look where they got today's "expert" from; birds of a feather... Despite their lack of common courtesy in interacting with viewers taking the time to give them feedback, I fully intend to contact them on this subject, and have forwarded a link to your side of the story to other venues dedicated to exposing this kind of transphobic manipulation of the "news", so that their readers can do the same and go on the record to let KUSI know that their ham-fisted attempts to manipulate trans-related reporting are patently obvious and a stain on KUSI's journalistic reputation.— March 29, 2009 3:26 p.m.
UCSD pays for trans-species project.
NotQuiteADiva- Hinduism is the third largest religion on Earth, and while it is steeped in "ancient culture" (just like Judaism and Christianity, only older) it is hardly some archaic philosophy only known to a handful of scholars...somewhere around a billion people are Hindus. A good number of those one billion Hindus believe as a basic tenet of their faith that souls can transmigrate among different species. They also acknowledge more than two sexes/genders, just as current, living cultures in places as diverse as Thailand, Tahiti, Samoa, Indonesia and Mexico do. So no, I don't think that a billion Hindus are just indulging in "pop culture furriness" or that historical and current non-binary sex/gender paradigms outside of modern western cultures can simply be explained away as nothing but "mental illness", especially as modern western science itself has shown that facile explanation to have precious little basis in fact in most cases of gender variance.— March 29, 2009 12:56 a.m.
UCSD pays for trans-species project.
First off, it is irrefutable fact that the various factors used to create scientific classifications of "sex"- genetics and primary and secondary phenotypical characteristics as well as innate behaviors attributed to sex- do not always match up neatly as so many people wish they did....not because of "choice" or "mental illness" but because of simple biology. Some XX individuals are born with penises, some XY people are born with vaginas, some with both, some with neither. In many cases, there is no way to make a definitive determination of any one sex and all that can be reasonably done is to ASK the person in question what they feel inside. Intelligent people who don't let their social and religious biases get in the way accept that any strictly binary paradigm that refuses to acknowledge anything other than two possibilities is as hopelessly simplistic as earlier "science" that said that all humans could be classified as one of a handful of "races", with well defined behaviors and social standing attributable to individuals based on that classification alone, that they should be legally harassed into accepting as "God's will". Even Christ himself spoke of "eunuchs born so from their mother's wombs"...a eunuch is of course someone with non-standard male genitalia who isn't quite 100% man OR a woman. What is patently obvious in the wholesale dismissal of any variations in sexual identity beyond the binary, and also the scorn heaped upon the idea of someone feeling that they should have been another species, it the implicit bias against any belief system other than a Western/Judeo-Christian one...the ideas that there are more than two sexes and that the spiritual component of a person's being can exist in the body of an animal or that the spirit of an animal can occupy the body of a human are part and parcel of many non-western religious traditions, and believing that this is possible is no more outrageous or disturbed than believing that a piece of bread is the body of Christ and infused with his spirit.— March 28, 2009 7:37 p.m.
UCSD pays for trans-species project.
"reddragonfly" said: "There is no scenario where letting the subject of a story tell the journalist what to write is acceptable." Since you don't like the word "dumb", pick an appropriate synonym to apply to this statement. If this were true, then why on Earth would anyone ever interview anybody, and what would keep a "journalist" from simply reporting as fact anything they felt like, if they felt that it was "the truth"? How about a scenario where the subject says "my name is _____" but the author decides to use that person's name as it appears on their birth certificate that isn't the same, while providing NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER as to why they chose to do so but acknowledging that they did so against the wishes of the subject? Only the most twisted mind would characterize that as journalistic integrity and a quest for "truth" and accuracy. "A journalist can and should refuse any specific request from the subject of the article regardless of what that request signifies." Can, yes...should? For what purpose? Just to impose their will over the subject and without giving any rational reason for doing so? That is the issue here; not that Grimm made the choice but that he never disclosed his reasons for doing so, either because he's a lousy journalist who left what is an important aspect of the story out, or because he was afraid of standing up on the record for the beliefs and biases that drove his decision. Your ill conceived blanket pronouncements make no sense at all, and as for my "shilling" for Citybeat, I merely mentioned that they scooped the reader by nearly four months and had a better article- the former is fact, the latter my opinion. Your demand that I "stop shilling" when I only mentioned it once is not only amusing (and quite telling) in its wild-eyed distortion of the facts, but ironic considering how vehemently you defend the idea that writers should be free to write without other people telling them what they should and shouldn't say. If your post is an example of the kind of logic and intellectual honesty you have to work with...good luck right back at ya.— March 28, 2009 5:28 p.m.
UCSD pays for trans-species project.
mjh, your analogies fail on a number of counts... First there is the immense stretch of conflating someone's choice of how they wish to be addressed with hiding criminal activity, which even you admit is a dubious tack to take. Secondly, you say "...the reporter cannot see souls and spirits" True enough, but I'd be willing to bet that he didn't inspect Ms. Cardenas' genitalia either, and merely took her word for their form and status...so how *truly* objective can his reporting on them be? That's the whole point that nobody wants to admit- what is presented as "truth" is simply what Ernie Grimm has decided is the truth, and any claim that his "truth" is based on objective observation fails miserably. He took what Ms. Cardenas told him at face value when it was aligned with his personal biases, and reported what he wanted to believe...that is hardly objective journalism, at best it is editorializing and at worst it is just propaganda. Here's an analogy for you...say Ernie Grimm reports on a person whose religion differs from his own, and the person asks to be referred to as "Mrs.Smith" having been married in her church. Now let's imagine that Ernie's church claims to be "the one true church" and he interprets this as meaning that Mrs. Smith's marriage is not valid in the eyes of God- so he refuses to respect her request and calls her "miss" throughout the article, without giving any reason why... only a fawning apologist for Mr. Grimm would seriously contend that this was a valid and respectful action, or necessary to presenting "the truth as he sees it". And even if one were willing to accept that specious explanation, for him to refuse the request with no elaboration on his motives or reasoning WHATSOEVER belies any claims that it was in the interests of "truth"...any alleged "truth" that guided Mr. Grimm in choosing to disrespect the subject's wishes is completely and utterly hidden, which is not what a person genuinely interested in exposing the truth does. To have respected Ms. Cardenas' wishes would in no way have "obligated" Ernie Grimm to "change his opinion" about what he sees as the "truth" of her situation, and wouldn't have even needed to give the impression that he agreed with any assertions implicit in her desire to be addressed as requested...he could have made his opinion crystal clear, but that is just the point- he had the chance and didn't, and instead took the coward's way out of not taking any stand except to refuse the subject's request and only cryptically mention it in passing. In so doing he not only disrespected her but showed that he isn't AT ALL interested in objectivity or exposing all possible angles of a story; he's not a journalist, but a propagandist- and not even a very skilled one, at that.— March 28, 2009 1:02 p.m.
UCSD pays for trans-species project.
First of all, congratulations to the Reader and Ernie Grimm for reporting on a story that San Diego CityBeat featured on December 2 of last year...right on top of things as usual. Unlike CityBeat's article that delves into the subject in more pertinent detail in half as much space, the Readers' version ends up being really more of an expose on just how ill prepared a "journalist" can be to actually cover a story than anything useful in understanding the subject at hand...Grimm seems almost proud of his utter lack of understanding of transgender issues or at the very least too clueless to know when he is indicating it- "...the hormones don’t seem to have raised his voice yet..." Even a cursory bit of basic research (maybe...asking Ms. Cardenas?) would have informed him that female hormones don't change a male born individual's voice. Similarly, he reports on an experiment in transhumanism without ever mentioning the term, and no doubt doesn't have a clue what it means if this is any indication- "“Body hacking,” I ask, “as in hacking with a hatchet?”" Just pathetically dumb. But the final nail in his journalistic coffin is this- "Author’s note: Micha Cárdenas asked that feminine pronouns be used in this story. With respect, the author declined." In this case, Grimm can't even fall back on the excuse of ignorance; his thinly veiled sneering tone throughout the article makes it clear that his choice to ignore the express wishes of the person being covered was made with the specific intention of DISrespecting her. Obviously this is his right, but the fact that he would do so without ANY elaboration at the very least shows that he's a lousy reporter...if this was important enough to mention, then it would seem to be important enough to explain and might have at least added food for thought- but either undisclosed personal bias or cowardice (or both) caused him to take this cheap parting shot while pretending that it was simply an insignificant detail unworthy of further commentary. Again, a simple look at journalistic style guides would have told Grimm that to do what he did is *highly* disrespectful and akin to referring to people of African descent as "coloreds"...real journalists with a shred of integrity simply don't do things like this. There was absolutely NOTHING to be gained by refusing to respect the subject's wishes...except to intentionally disrespect Micha Cardenas and pander to the sensibilities of those who are opposed to people exercising their right to express their internal sense of their own gender without being publicly ridiculed, and who like Grimm actively seek to make their lives worse by engaging in this kind of asinine behavior. That's not reporting, that's just being a cowardly, mean spirited jackass.— March 28, 2009 12:38 a.m.