LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS — UPDATE Dec. 1, 2014 — Ad in the Minnesota Star-Tribune: “Your 14-year-old daughter just lost her position on an all-girl team to a male… and now she may have to shower with him.”
Word comes via Media Matters that the Minnesota Star-Tribune has once again run a transgender-hate ad from a group that is attempting to stop a trans rights policy from being adopted by schools. (The ad this time also appeared in St. Cloud Times and the Duluth News Tribune.)
The first time this happened, I challenged Steve Yaeger, vice president of marketing and public relations for the Star-Tribune to own up to the blunder of allowing hate mongering in his paper. That never happened and the paper in fact, insisted the ad fell within their advertising guidelines.
This time Yaeger is ignoring requests for comments from Media Matters.
That leaves me no choice but to once again plaster Yeager’s photo all over the internet hoping that he comes around to understand that transphobic advertising not only hurts, but also kills trans people.
—–
(Original article Sept. 9, 2014) The Minnesota Star-Tribune on Sunday published a full-page ad running on the back page of the newspaper by an anti-transgender group that is trying to stop a trans students rights policy from being adopted by highs schools in that state.
The ad showed a picture of a school shower room with these words superimposed over it: ‘A male wants to shower beside your 14-year-old daughter. Are you OK with that?‘
Never mind the rest of the ad. That right there is a clear case of transphobic fear mongering, leaving one to wonder how this ad passed muster with those running the largest newspaper in Minnesota?
According to the Gay Star News, the paper’s vice president of marketing and public relations said this: ‘[the ad] met all the requirements of our ad policy.’
According to the Star Tribune’s website, this gentleman is Steve Yaeger. Now I don’t know if Mr. Yaeger is a bit clueless, perhaps stuck in the last century, or the pile of money being offered by this hate group was a bit much to resist, but I do know there is some accountability to had for this fiasco, and it lies squarely with Mr. Yaeger.
So Mr. Yaeger, you broke it, you fix it. Apologize and run a full-page rebuttal against transgender hate mongering.
Contact info:
Steve Yaeger, Vice President Marketing & Public Relations
612-673-4256 (office)
651-357-3036 (mobile)
steve.yaeger@startribune.com
Star Tribune main office: 612-673-4000
http://thecolu.mn/13679/star-tribune-publishes-full-page-anti-transgender-ad-child-protection-league
Dec. 1, 2014, Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/01/misleading-anti-transgender-newspaper-ads-spark/201724
——
Watch LEXIE CANNES right now: http://www.amazon.com/Lexie-Cannes-CourtneyODonnell/dp/B00KEYH3LQ Or get the DVD: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963781332
LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS is associated with Wipe Out Transphobia: http://www.wipeouttransphobia.com/
Read Lexie Cannes in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/courtney-odonnell/
Categories: Policy, Administrative, Transgender, Transsexual, Trans, Transphobia, exploitation, dehumanizing, violence, hate
LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS 
I do believe is disgusting article. But that’s freedom of speech. In the United States people have a right to state any opinion they wish even idiots.And that is our blessing And or curse
That is not what freedom of speech means at all, so feel free to slam the hell out of their offensive horsecrap.
thats not freedom of speech, thats slandering and slandering is illegal.
it’s only slander when you say a person did some thing’ you have a right to say that in your opinion all white people are racist.are that all transgender’s are crazy. Are are transgender’s are beautiful. Get over it you always be people who will hate. In a free country they have a right to hate what they had no right to is do physical harm to someone. I feel safer then hating in the open than behind closed doors
Freedom of speech is not the issue. Of course anyone should have the right to say things we disagree with, but that doesn’t mean that the newspaper should provide them with a platform to do so.
so you’re saying newspapers shouldn’t print something that you consider hate. No, that’s not how the American system works. I find the article discussing myself. But they have a right to be disgusting. But that does not take the right away for then to be disgusting. And the newspaper to print it, don’t buy the newspaper.
Should they be allowed to print KKK literature scot free? How about encouraging sex with minors? If publications choose to venture that far, they should expect a swift rebut from the rest of society. If Mr. Yaeger wants to run more transphobic nonsense in his paper he should expect to see his picture plastered over the internet as a result.
it’s not against the law the have stupid KKK beliefs. And having sex with minors is against the law. So your arguments are ridiculous. And you have a right to plaster anybody’s picture anywhere you want. Have fun
That was not what I was saying at all. It is very difficult to see how you reached that conclusion from my comment, particularly the phrase, “Of course anyone should have the right to say things we disagree with”.
This was a paid advertisement not editorial content. Hence my point about this not being an issue of free speech. The newspaper (i.e. its owners, editors and reporters) is not expressing an opinion it is providing a platform for someone else to do so in return for money. The publication of this ad. in this newspaper it not an expression of the right of free speech, it is a commercial decision by the newspaper to take revenue in exchange for allowing a hate group advertising space in its publication.
The group producing the ad. no doubt has a right of free speech, (although how far that should, or does, extend to the promotion of hatred of other groups or individuals is a subject worthy of discussion in its own right) but that does not entitle them to a platform on which to express it. The paper was perfectly within its rights to choose to refuse that ad. without infringing anyone’s right of free speech. It did not do that but instead chose to accept money in return for printing an advertisement which was deliberately aimed at stirring up hatred (or at the very least of promoting deliberate misunderstanding) towards a specific group of people. In doing so they ought, reasonably, to have been aware that they would alienate those people who were targeted by the ad and that those people might also exercise their right of free speech in protesting the ad. the newspaper and those responsible for printing it in the paper.
Maybe if enough pressure is brought to bear on the paper then the next time some bunch of nutters wants to run an ad. promoting their own branch of hated the paper might actually look beyond the revenue they will get and consider whether they don’t have a moral duty of social responsibility to question whether they should publish it.
Or, of course, it may simply be that the editor of the paper agrees with the group promoting the ad. In which case he deserves whatever might be coming to him
Yeah, no. This is defamation and it is against the law in Minnesota:
609.765 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION.
Subdivision 1.Definition. Defamatory matter is anything which exposes a person or a group, class or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society, or injury to business or occupation.
Subd. 2.Acts constituting. Whoever with knowledge of its defamatory character orally, in writing or by any other means, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed is guilty of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
Subd. 3.Justification. Violation of subdivision 2 is justified if:
(1) the defamatory matter is true and is communicated with good motives and for justifiable ends; or
(2) the communication is absolutely privileged; or
(3) the communication consists of fair comment made in good faith with respect to persons participating in matters of public concern; or
(4) the communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair summary of any judicial, legislative or other public or official proceedings; or
(5) the communication is between persons each having an interest or duty with respect to the subject matter of the communication and is made with intent to further such interest or duty.
Subd. 4.Testimony required. No person shall be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of defamatory matter except upon the testimony of at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty.
Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.765
Please not that it says person OR groups. The Star Tribune AND Child Protection League need to be held accountable for that.
Im happy with this, as long as he also states that a lesbian wants to shower beside your 14 year old daughter.
A transwoman at that age is more likely to be interested in boys, at least the ones I know are, where as a lesbian will be interested in other girls.
He really does not understand, what damage he is doing, fueling the hate against trans people, more or less signing their death certificate. Ignorance is no excuse. not in this day.
I am pretty sure that the hypothetical lesbian would just be wanting to shower and not specifically beside anyone’s 14 year-old daughter. If there is anyone, of any gender or sexuality who are wanting to shower beside 14 year-olds, then that should be the focus of this group’s concerns if they are truly, as they claim, interested in protecting children.
Why are they seemingly unconcerned about kids being regarded as objects of sexual desire by others of the same sex yet get all out of shape over some trans kid who will probably want nothing less that to have to shower next to anybody and be seen to have the wrong genitalia? I would say just about all of the transexual women I have known would have been absolutely mortified to have had someone else see them naked. Most find it extremely uncomfortable having their genitalia seen by their medical professionals and a lot can’t even bear to look at them themselves.
Good points. Thanks for the comments.
I have pain for the child. But it. if they had not had gender surgery they have no business in the girls showers.may be the schools he is set up separate showers. And PS if they have not been on hormones for at least six months. They should not be allowed play
on girls teams is unfair to the other girls.
You’re pretty much advocating for “genital cops” right there. Who should do the checking? What about intersex kids? Under your scheme, some already using one bathroom or another may have to switch, and again, who is in charge of this genital checking? Finally, surgery is usually not performed on young kids until they’re older. Under your scheme, they’ll end up in the 41% suicide attempt group. Not much of a solution.
how about the school nurse doing the checking. they wish to dress as the females they should have that right. they are in their hearts and minds but they need your own shower facilities and restrooms. until the bodies are corrected to match their souls
I showed this to my wife last night and it made sense