More on that Grantland piece

Parker Marie Molloy has an excellent (and lengthy) article in the Advocate on the dangers of outing and why the media continues to fail trans people:

It’s important to separate the ethically ambiguous areas from the ethically wrong. In his piece, Hannan uncovered a lot of inconsistencies in Vanderbilt’s official backstory. Had she really worked on top-secret projects? Was she really a physicist with impressive degrees? Those are fair questions in a profile piece. But if this was to be about “the science and not the scientist,” it’s hard to see how Vanderbilt’s potentially falsified résumé fits in. Whether the putter was created by a world-renowned physicist or an auto mechanic, the science remains the same. So, while tempting to report on this information, Hannan should have understood that he agreed it would be off limits. Still, most wouldn’t fault him for doing this sort of investigative work. 

On the other hand, we have the clear-cut ethical issues. Disclosing Vanderbilt’s trans status to an investor, framing it as its own type of fraud, was wrong. Full stop. By doing that, Hannan was no longer simply reporting on the situation, but instead he was participating in the story. The same goes for wielding the knowledge of her trans status while simultaneously pressuring her into cooperation with the story's focus on the résumé.