Amazing story from Grantland that lands Bill Simmons in hot water

Recently we have had situations where people changed their sex to avoid arrest.

How do we know Dr. V didn't change sexes in order to defraud?

Based on the facts that were uncovered I just don't see how this wasn't a distinct possibility
 
How did all of those generals/Dan Quayle vouch for her though? The story seems unfinished...

Yeah that's what had me.

Maybe McCord knew of the secret, and didn't think her secret would be found out? Then vouched those stories. Because regardless no one would be able to speak on who did or did not work on a DoD project
 
Last edited:
How did all of those generals/Dan Quayle vouch for her though? The story seems unfinished...

McCord can say all he wants about it, but it's hearsay. The only people who can confirm it are those generals and the VP (who won't say anything) and Dr. V (who is dead).
 
double, but Deadspin did a pretty good job touching upon the article in question 
 
Last edited:
cliffs:
-writer researches magical putter that works
-putter made by some "scientist" with credentials such as graduating from MIT and working on secret projects such as the B2 bomber
-writer gets in contact with scientist, but scientist wants to only talk about the science behind the putter
-writer tries to fact check scientist's credentials
-facts aren't adding up and the writer can't match the credentials
-writer delves deeper into the story and does more investigative work
-writer finds out that scientist was once a man and none of the credentials are true
-scientist threatens writer and tries to get him to stop
-writer refuses
-scientist commits suicide
-story still gets ran
 
Last edited:
I was tripped out by the Generals and Quayle too.

There's also the fact that she was in at least 2 different lawsuits???? Seemed to me like a get rich quick type thing there.

And if he was to tell this story all the way to 2000, he couldn't dig any deeper and left it at that, the story is incomplete.

So that becomes the line of demarcation, do you dance around the subject and leave it ambiguous, do you expose the entire story including being married and having children at one point, or do you scrap the whole story?


And the General saying "she was one of us"......does that mean she really did contribute to the Stealth Bomber, or she was literally, one of them?


Even with all of the story told to us, there are still so many questions, and honestly, a movie could be put together about this, tho I don't think something like that will come.
 
Recently we have had situations where people changed their sex to avoid arrest.

How do we know Dr. V didn't change sexes in order to defraud?

Based on the facts that were uncovered I just don't see how this wasn't a distinct possibility
you're being willfully ignorant. 

what facts were uncovered in the article that imply that she used her transformation from man to woman as a means to defraud her investors?
 
Recently we have had situations where people changed their sex to avoid arrest.

How do we know Dr. V didn't change sexes in order to defraud?

Based on the facts that were uncovered I just don't see how this wasn't a distinct possibility

Because she worked at a restaurant in Washington long as a woman long before she made the putter. She was living trans life before she even put Yar into motion.
 
I was tripped out by the Generals and Quayle too.

There's also the fact that she was in at least 2 different lawsuits???? Seemed to me like a get rich quick type thing there.

And if he was to tell this story all the way to 2000, he couldn't dig any deeper and left it at that, the story is incomplete.

So that becomes the line of demarcation, do you dance around the subject and leave it ambiguous, do you expose the entire story including being married and having children at one point, or do you scrap the whole story?


And the General saying "she was one of us"......does that mean she really did contribute to the Stealth Bomber, or she was literally, one of them?


Even with all of the story told to us, there are still so many questions, and honestly, a movie could be put together about this, tho I don't think something like that will come.
The whole "one of us" is coming from McCord, never directly from one of the Generals...or the phone conversation with Quayle

Out of everybody in question, McCord somehow escaped all this criticism
 
Recently we have had situations where people changed their sex to avoid arrest.


How do we know Dr. V didn't change sexes in order to defraud?


Based on the facts that were uncovered I just don't see how this wasn't a distinct possibility


you're being willfully ignorant. 

what facts were uncovered in the article that imply that she used her transformation from man to woman as a means to defraud her investors?

Because this person immediately started suing people after the transition. Didn't win either lawsuit
 
that doesn't imply anything. that's super weak & offensive
 
Last edited:
The whole "one of us" is coming from McCord, never directly from one of the Generals...or the phone conversation with Quayle

Out of everybody in question, McCord somehow escaped all this criticism


Weebaygif.

Very good point.
 
that doesn't imply anything. that's super weak & offensive

Yeah you just want to be mad.

This person sued two former employers for sexual discrimination. Given that this person has proven to be a liar to gain profit I don't think it's a ridiculous leap to question that this person would do anything for profit.
 
There are thousands and possibly millions of transgender people that made the transition and never defrauded or lied.

I just don't understand why I'm supposed to feel sorry for a proven fraud because they are transgender and decided to take their own life.
 
After reading all articles, it shouldn't have run. Yes, it was seductive not only as a reporter but also as a reader to dig deeper into the story. However, it was irresponsible. If you can't properly and conclusively check all of your facts, you know you could be liable for some sort of slip up somewhere. It was way too risky to run it. How lawyers even missed this point is a little beyond me. I'm not an expert in this field by any means but to err on the side of caution is always the best choice, no matter how good a story seems. If I'm writing a story on someone and their background is murky, I cannot in good faith move forward with a solid story knowing there are holes that the person's story and they are unwilling to share it. Even to the point where he finds out that Dr. V is a transgendered person he should have stopped, and maybe tried to directly ask her about it. But to gloss over that fact was irresponsible. I know Simmons is the smart aleck-y type, but I think he genuinely feels sorry for this. It's journalistic irresponsibility.
 
I dont think being transgender and being a fraud should be placed in the same pool of deceit, that's the way it was portrayed in the story. I can see why people would be pissed off about that

I agree. It's one thing to say to the investor "Did you know she never went to MIT" ; something completely different when you bring up "did you know she used to be a man". Being transgender is not 'faking' anything. It's a person's life.
 
Back
Top Bottom