How the AP Stylebook Fails Transgender Subjects
by Amanda Hess – Washington City Paper
The Associated Press Stylebook sets a fairly helpful standard for media coverage of transgender subjects. According to the AP “sex changes” entry, reporters are to:
Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics (by hormone therapy, body modification, or surgery) of the opposite sex and present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly.
So why does Jessie L. Bonner’s recent AP profile of transgender mayoral candidate Melissa Sue Robinson keep zig-zagging between male and female pronouns? Robinson has acquired female physical characteristics, and prefers the female pronoun. And yet, Bonner’s story refers to Robinson with female signifiers (she, her) 17 times, and male signifiers (he, him, his) six times.
Perhaps the AP standard isn’t so helpful after all. In the piece, Bonner applies the rules differently to Robinson before and after her gender transition. Each current reference to Robinson refers to the candidate as female; each reference to Robinson before she “legally changed his name and underwent surgery in 1998″ employs the male pronoun. There’s some AP style hidden beneath the awkward usage: technically, Bonner refers to both Robinson and her former legal identity, Charles Staelens Jr., in a manner that’s “consistent with the way the individuals live publicly.” Staelens lived publicly as a man, so gets a “he”; Robinson lives publicly as a woman, and earns a “she.”
Bonner’s usage may be technically correct, but it also borders on the offensive. (First, let’s overlook the fact that nine-tenths of the story is entirely fixated on the fact that a female mayoral candidate “previously lived as a man.”) As Bonner switches between “his” and “hers” in order to hew to AP style, Robinson comes off looking confused:
The 58-year-old was born male and still carries the slightly larger-than-an-average-woman build of Charles Staelens Jr., who legally changed his name and underwent surgery in 1998 to become a woman.
She also kept his voice.
He was married for 17 years, owned a construction company, and was a Republican when he ran for city council in Lansing, Mich., where he was raised with his identical twin brother until their parents divorced in the 1960s.
Now she says she is celibate, a telecommunications worker who is “just another cog in the machine,” and a Democrat who in 2004 became the first transgender to run for the state legislature in Michigan.
Later in the story, another component of the AP “sex changes” rule comes into play—the part that instructs reporters to use the pronoun “preferred by the individuals” in question. According to Bonner’s story, Robinson has never personally identified as male. Sure, that preference wasn’t publicly known before 1998, but it’s now been out in the open for 11 years. And yet, Bonner still churns out phrases like this one:
“as an adult, [Robinson] always thought of himself as a woman but waited until his late 40s before undergoing the gender reassignment surgery.”
Actually, Robinson has always thought of herself as a woman. And yet, to the Associated Press, Robinson’s forever gender remains male. Why? Because to the AP, you only get to be referred to as female after you undergo intensive surgery—and even then, your gender only applies to the years you’ve spent since going under the knife. That sucks. No person should be forced to invest in a legal name change and live up to a set physical standard—according to AP style, “hormone therapy, body modification, or surgery”—to be identified by their true gender identity.
No matter what the AP treatment suggests, Robinson didn’t become female when she changed her name and underwent surgery. That’s just the point at which the Associated Press learned that Robinson was female. With any other developing story, the AP will update its outdated, incorrect narrative when new information comes to light. Why should a transgender person’s story be any different?
Sphere: Related Content
Are BioIdentical Hormones Safe?
In my opinion, Bioidentical Hormones are safer and more effective than their synthetic hormone counterparts, ...
KUDOS!! :)) 
I wish i could be there too
.-= Miss sudha´s last blog ..ONLINE SHOP =-. 
Comment by Gypsy on 11 December 2009:
I understand, from my standpoint, your dissatisfaction with the reports use of pronouns. I know I have always been female, inside, and would like the world to understand my desire for the proper pronoun usage when referring to me.
I also understand others confusion, in referencing to me and there switch of pronouns. If they have not come to understand me in a personal way they will only refer to me based on the visual image I present them with, however they receive that image. The time I spent conforming to the male image in conjunction to my physical body gave reason for people to pronoun me with “he”. After transitioning they have visual reason to use, ’she” I have to admit it all is quite confusing for myself, in dealing with a mind and soul that is female and a body that is male. But when it is all boiled down for those who dont know me I am only what they see. I really have given up on the idea that someone should respect me if they dont know me. They cant truely respect something they dont know. If they use a currently inaccurate pronoun I simply write it off as, ignorance. I will accept there lack of social grace based on there ignorance. They will never be able to fully understand the transsexual experience as we do. So I dont expect that from them.
The confusion, in switching in pronouns, demonstrates well, the confusion that is inherent in transsexualism and not just for the observer. I admit it has reeked confusion and pain on my own self pronoun. I am at peace now but it was not always so. Since I accept that in myself I can accept it from others as well.
I hope this gives you some peace as well. I do think a reporter would do well to be very honest and clear in his reports. I think you are very accurate and justified in your observation of this writing. The reporter is not explicit in use for reason of switching pronouns. I understand why you are offended and offer peace in understanding, they cant understand and as much as I want them to accept my differences I choose to grant them theirs. The offence is only there if I decide there view of me is important. Fight on and demand respect if you believe you want there respect or, maybe decide you dont really need there respect and leave them behind you. I also want you to continue to voice your understanding because, its not just you and me. Your voice may be the voice of many others so fight on! I just am not convinced the pronoun of a third party will make a difference in it all. You seem convinced and both are good things to have in the same world.