Nightline: Transgender Executive piece
Had to post this after the incredibly stupid and wasted interview with Megan Wallent. The interviewer went around asking Megan's assistant and those who worked with him if they thought it was 'confusing' Megan used to be Michael. The interviewer also asked if they saw Megan as a man or a woman.
Uh, newsflash. These people continue to work with Megan, and at Microsoft no less. Do you think they would say anything negative about Megan in these circumstances? Also, why the stubbornness at trying to paint Megan as a freakshow? Why succumb to the shock value of 'is it a man, or a woman'?
You know what was the worst part of this piece? When the interviewer asked Megan's wife if Megan is her husband, or wife. I nearly slipped on the floor whilst doing the laundry.
C'mon Nightline. Don't pander to narrow-minded viewers. Believe it or not, there are people out there who will accept Megan and other transgenders without a second thought. And the questioning of Megan's wife should have been handled more delicately; she looked as if she would start crying.
Should have asked more intelligent questions, like since Megan has changed her name and sex on ID papers is the marriage still legal? After all, same-sex marriages aren't legal in the US. How hard was it to change Megan's old identity (paperwork)? Did she make the decision by herself, or was there a support group? <-- See what I mean by 'wasted'? Nightline had the opportunity to shine a spotlight and educate viewers on this issue, but instead squandered it.
Do yourself a favour and don't read the comments on the ABC News article. How people can remain judgmental on things they are most ignorant I'll never understand.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure that last sentence will come bite me in the arse one of these days. The 'people' I'm referring to are the posters who say Megan should remain a man 'as God intended'. Screw that.
Megan's and family's brave for going through with the interview. After reading her blog entry on the experience, perhaps I was hasty ripping on ABC. Maybe the GMA segment was different from the Nightline cut? It's the tone of the piece that irks me, not the content. I did not see the level of sensitivity the topic needed.
Additionally, I do realise that not everyone wants to be a poster child for something, and just want to tell their story. My bit about Nightline and the chance to 'educate viewers' is probably too much :(
Uh, newsflash. These people continue to work with Megan, and at Microsoft no less. Do you think they would say anything negative about Megan in these circumstances? Also, why the stubbornness at trying to paint Megan as a freakshow? Why succumb to the shock value of 'is it a man, or a woman'?
You know what was the worst part of this piece? When the interviewer asked Megan's wife if Megan is her husband, or wife. I nearly slipped on the floor whilst doing the laundry.
C'mon Nightline. Don't pander to narrow-minded viewers. Believe it or not, there are people out there who will accept Megan and other transgenders without a second thought. And the questioning of Megan's wife should have been handled more delicately; she looked as if she would start crying.
Should have asked more intelligent questions, like since Megan has changed her name and sex on ID papers is the marriage still legal? After all, same-sex marriages aren't legal in the US. How hard was it to change Megan's old identity (paperwork)? Did she make the decision by herself, or was there a support group? <-- See what I mean by 'wasted'? Nightline had the opportunity to shine a spotlight and educate viewers on this issue, but instead squandered it.
Do yourself a favour and don't read the comments on the ABC News article. How people can remain judgmental on things they are most ignorant I'll never understand.
EDIT: I'm pretty sure that last sentence will come bite me in the arse one of these days. The 'people' I'm referring to are the posters who say Megan should remain a man 'as God intended'. Screw that.
Megan's and family's brave for going through with the interview. After reading her blog entry on the experience, perhaps I was hasty ripping on ABC. Maybe the GMA segment was different from the Nightline cut? It's the tone of the piece that irks me, not the content. I did not see the level of sensitivity the topic needed.
Additionally, I do realise that not everyone wants to be a poster child for something, and just want to tell their story. My bit about Nightline and the chance to 'educate viewers' is probably too much :(