I never thought I’d have to write this; however, here we go. Months ago, I replied to an online request for transgender sources to discuss trans genocide in the United States. Being that I am a transgender publicist and activist, I responded. The journalist I spoke with, important for context, is not a member of the LGBTQIA community and, because of the nature of the topic at hand, very bluntly put, I spoke with a cis-het white woman who transitioned from nursing into medical journalism. I’ll be the first to admit when I make an error in judgment. It was an error in judgment to speak with this journalist, and only months later did that error surface through flagrant apathy.
When covering such a life or death topic of transgender genocide and how medical professionals provide competent care for transgender patients in the United States, quite obviously the subject matter falls at the intersection of identity, human rights, civil rights and healthcare, I had found in particular this journalist not to be the best lens that this story and the future of its much needed on-going coverage to be many months after the fact and am writing this in the hopes to educate future journalists covering this beat on what not to do when a transgender source follows up with additional information regarding the evolution of the circumstances after the initial interview was published.
Again, as a publicist, I saw a few red flags in the video interview; one was asking exactly what a publicist does (and not already knowing or researching that before speaking with me). However, I chalked it up to being newer to professional journalism. Because of their connection to the medical field, I thought I’d allow them to speak with me and that I would be in good hands because all medical professionals take an oath to “do no harm.” Only later did I find out that, again, it is the same level of apathy and classism I am now experiencing in the nonprofit medical healthcare system from again cisgender white women.
That brings me to my follow-up inquiry with the journalist who wrote the original article in question; my follow-up request for an update, which was simple yet highly relevant and impactful to the future coverage of the topic, went unanswered.
For context, when I was initially interviewed, I said my nonprofit-based low-income medical care was being handled well at the time by an LGBT clinic in Los Angeles. To be clear, in the months following this coverage, that has changed substantially; so much so that you may read about that via:
After reading that, any person could now see why I, as an American transgender person who receives healthcare in the nonprofit system, would want to follow up with the journalist who covered this topic and provide them with that information in the hopes of protecting other transgender people who may be reading that article, and not direct them to a clinic that I no longer regard as trustworthy.
Now, you ask: what was my request to the journalist? It was very simple: not a request for a follow-up interview, just a simple ask to remove the one brief sentence containing the hyperlinked nonprofit name, as I again provided the aforementioned Op-Ed update for context.
My request as a transgender source was and is based on the fact that I would not like an article that was published months ago to live forever online and direct other transgender people to any medical institution in which I no longer have confidence regarding quality, safety, and future informed medical care for transgender people such as myself.
When a journalist reads a request like this, of course they always have a choice: reply or not; however, the reality is, from the source’s perspective, when this simple a request on such a highly sensitive topic goes unaddressed, we see you for the journalist that you are, and that’s not one committed to the beat; that’s one who wanted the accolades for writing one article regarding trans identity.
I, for one, as a transgender publicist, see it for what it is and call bullshit.
From a publicist’s perspective the follow up provided by myself as a source is in and of itself a continuation of your initial story regarding the evolution of transgender genocide in America, a journalist’s selectiveness in not simply responding as a professional and also personal courtesy as the topic at hand is of dire importance to the source communicating the update on reflects to me a few things, an insincerity of dedication to actually covering the beat at hand and how it evolves, not possessing the capacity to understand that some stories evolve into much larger ones that impact the transgender community and also an overall disrespect of the transgender source’s lived human experience and the future of their community’s coverage.
In this instance, when dealing with identity, genocide and media coverage, not responding to a transgender publicist’s minor update request in updating the story by simply removing the nonprofit’s name and hyperlink is frankly terrible public relations as a journalist because I’ll now know who never to send transgender sources to in terms of not just yourself as an independent journalist but also regarding the online nursing publication that published said article.
Failing to respond in particular here says so much, doesn’t it? It did to me.
As a publicist who is transgender, it absolutely fucking pains me to have to highlight journalistic apathy when covering transgender genocide as your beat, in the same manner I have had to shine a light on apathy regarding transgender people’s lived human experience within the classist nonprofit medical field, but here I am.
Covering the transgender human experience is not a one-and-done; we are not your portfolio piece to showcase how good of a human you think you are; this is a beat; lives are at stake.
Consider what kind of work you are putting out into the world and the real-life consequences of that work.