Ferria wrote:
I guess models can differ in person versus photos but if the model has the same look as they do in the photos and you were contacting them because you wanted to shoot them for the way they look then I don't think sex/gender matters. If it was a specific shoot where genitals matter then you probably should have asked to be sure.
Just my thoughts even though I'm not a photographer

You do make a good point. It might be my ego, if I was aware and agree it would feel better..

Michael Spring wrote:
Hey steve! Laugh this one off.... you could make this a very funny story to tell people.

Unlikelly to happen again..... Imo. Great stuff though Lol.

So many of my friends also seen the humor in it, for me quite embarrassing, I ask myself am I getting that old where i have to wonder... well you right laugh it off and get back to work! THANKS..

Steve Black Photography wrote:
So many of my friends also seen the humor in it, for me quite embarrassing, I ask myself am I getting that old where i have to wonder... well you right laugh it off and get back to work! THANKS..

Embarrassing, how?  Often models show up looking different than their portfolios.

No, I wouldn't ask every model, "Are you really a woman?"  That would be embarrassing.

Steve Black Photography wrote:
I search and found nothing on this subject, if it have been discuss please point me in the right direction..
I ask a model would she be interested in a trade shoot, model said yes, We set a date and on the day of the shoot i find out model was opposite the sex i was looking to shoot. My question is should models post true Gender? or is it my job to ask?

This should NOT happen, ever.

What did you do when it came time to shoot?

Steve Black Photography wrote:
I search and found nothing on this subject, if it have been discuss please point me in the right direction..
I ask a model would she be interested in a trade shoot, model said yes, We set a date and on the day of the shoot i find out model was

Hi,

You liked the models portfolio enough to book a shoot right? The look was okay for you?

I'm not sure that gender should make any difference beyond that?

Can you clarify what the problem was? I mean, you liked the models portfolio...

Jen
p.s. although I agree that this should not have been a surprise I disagree that it was a shoot ender, (what happened at the shoot?)

Steve Black Photography wrote:
I search and found nothing on this subject, if it have been discuss please point me in the right direction..
I ask a model would she be interested in a trade shoot, model said yes, We set a date and on the day of the shoot i find out model was opposite the sex i was looking to shoot. My question is should models post true Gender? or is it my job to ask?

C'mon... you live in NYC... you chose a model based on looks... during Pride Month... anything can happen and has to be expected!!!        

Steve Black Photography wrote:
I search and found nothing on this subject, if it have been discuss please point me in the right direction..
I ask a model would she be interested in a trade shoot, model said yes, We set a date and on the day of the shoot i find out model was opposite the sex i was looking to shoot. My question is should models post true Gender? or is it my job to ask?

It could be argued that you misled the model.  You looked at her portfolio and asked her to shoot.  Unless you told her that a particular type of genitals was required for the shoot, she had every reason to believe she was fully qualified for what you had in mind.

Steve Black Photography wrote:
My question is should models post true Gender?

That is like asking if people should lie or not.

or is it my job to ask?

Part of the job of every professional is to make sure the input for the job is correct. So one should question everything until absolutely clear. At least if one cares about the result.

Steve Black Photography wrote:
My question is should models post true Gender?

Interesting question. What is "true gender"? For a transgender person, true gender has nothing to do with their original plumbing.

And why does it matter, especially in this area? Remember, this is a business built on image. If the model looks like what you need, then you're getting what you need and your requirement has been met.

Steve Black Photography wrote:
or is it my job to ask?

Ask them what? Questions about their genitals? May we ask you about yours? Again, if it's a nude shoot then body parts are important. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what's concealed by clothing, does it?

M A R K wrote:
Models should be truthful about their gender - and if their gender determination is not straight forward then it should be mentioned either in their profile notes or during discussions.

Imagine, for a moment, that the OP had booked what he thought was a female model for a girl-girl shoot. In the event that one of those models turned out not to be female, how do you think the other model might react...

Again, this goes back to image. If the subject has the physical characteristics to accomplish the photographer's vision then the requirement has been met.

In a nude shoot, it wouldn't matter if the model was transgender or had some other physical characteristic that was unsuitable for the concept. Either way, if the model understood the concept and already knew there was some issue with body appearance that would have an impact on the final outcome, then THIS is what needs to be disclosed. Gender history means nothing if the appearance is congruent for the photo concept.

It's the same for weight, obvious age difference from the profile, hair color or any other physical characteristic. I once had a model show up for a nude shoot, and when she came into the studio I saw that she had a scar the diameter of my finger running from her chest to her navel. I was able to photoshop it out, but I informed her that this was something she should have disclosed beforehand.

Again, congruence of the body image to the photo concept. THAT is the area of responsibility for the model, assuming the photographer has been clear about his requirements.

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
In a nude shoot, it wouldn't matter if the model was transgender or had some other physical characteristic that was unsuitable for the concept. Either way, if the model understood the concept and already knew there was some issue with body appearance that would have an impact on the final outcome, then THIS is what needs to be disclosed. Gender history means nothing if the appearance is congruent for the photo concept.

Errr...no.

The issue is far more complex than that and anything short of full disclosure and honesty is unacceptable behaviour and likely to have damaging consequences for people other than the model who lied.

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
What is "true gender"?

What you are born with. It is in the DNA too.

For a transgender person, true gender has nothing to do with their original plumbing.

That doesn't mean the same applies to everyone else. If someone wants to cheat oneself for one's own fun, that doesn't mean s/he should cheat others. Imagine a MUA pretending he is a top photographer. Would it be fun for you to meet him at the shoot to find that out he doesn't even have a camera?

And why does it matter, especially in this area? Remember, this is a business built on image. If the model looks like what you need, then you're getting what you need and your requirement has been met.

Truth matters in all areas. You seem to be missing this part of the OP:

Steve Black Photography wrote:
on the day of the shoot i find out model was opposite the sex i was looking to shoot.

Obviously he was looking for something particular, not just any piece of meat.

Ask them what? Questions about their genitals? May we ask you about yours? Again, if it's a nude shoot then body parts are important. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what's concealed by clothing, does it?

Gender is not only genitals. Males and females have different biology, different body structure, different skin even, they move differently and stay differently. So "are you really a woman?" does not translate into "show me your genitals". There is nothing wrong in questioning and looking for truth. But there is definitely a lot of wrong in misleading others.

M A R K wrote:
Errr...no.

The issue is far more complex than that and anything short of full disclosure and honesty is unacceptable behaviour and likely to have damaging consequences for people other than the model who lied.

You still haven't made your case. Why is this so complex? What are the damaging consequences?

Are you really concerned with honesty? Is there some moral code in this matter that must not be transgressed?

"Full disclosure" is not a job requirement if the body appearance fulfills the photo concept requirements. Does the model also need to disclose if she's a recovering alcoholic? If she's overdue on her rent payment? If she sued for wages the last photographer who didn't pay her?

Or are you worried that another model (or perhaps you as the photographer) just might not be comfortable with someone who does not accept what might be seen as conformity to social norms?

Just because someone rejects what others demand of them doesn't mean they're lying. It merely means they're living their own life on their terms. This business tends to attract people with this sort of outlook, doesn't it?

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
You still haven't made your case.

That was intentional, hence the ellipses. Most people have sufficient intelligence to be able to figure things out for themselves when given a gentle nudge...

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
Are you really concerned with honesty?

Yup. I'm surprised that you think I might not be - but I guess that says more about you than it does me.

anchev wrote:
What you are born with. It is in the DNA too.

Don’t confuse “sex” with “gender” Chromosomes, hormones, and genitals are sex characteristics. Gender is a construct that exists apart from body configuration. When the two match, the person is referred to as “cisgender”. When they don’t, that’s “transgender”

anchev wrote:
If someone wants to cheat oneself for one's own fun, that doesn't mean s/he should cheat others. Imagine a MUA pretending he is a top photographer. Would it be fun for you to meet him at the shoot to find that out he doesn't even have a camera?

This is not a matter of cheating. We still don’t know if this was a nude shoot or not.

If you need a prop for a shoot - say, a motorcycle - and you ask me for one, no problem. I have one! It looks exactly like what you need. If you later complain to me that I lied to you because it doesn’t start then I will challenge you on what you really wanted. You got what you asked for. If you want a bike that runs, I also have that. Just tell me what you need for the shoot and you'll have it.

anchev wrote:
Truth matters in all areas. You seem to be missing this part of the OP. Obviously he was looking for something particular, not just any piece of meat.

That isn’t obvious, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If it was a nude shoot and the model showed up with a penis, then this is irresponsible (and quite likely deceptive) on the part of the model. But if we rejected every model who failed to disclose something that wasn't obvious when she booked then we’d all work a whole lot less than we do now.

anchev wrote:
Males and females have different biology, different body structure, different skin even, they move differently and stay differently. So "are you really a woman?" does not translate into "show me your genitals". There is nothing wrong in questioning and looking for truth. But there is definitely a lot of wrong in misleading others.

There seems to be an undue interest in “truth” in this thread, but I suspect there may be some other issues. I’m starting to get the impression that some of those who have posted here are just getting the heebie-jeebies about someone who may have been wrapped in a blue blanket at birth instead of a pink one.

The fundamental question has yet to be answered - did the model have the desired physical characteristics for the job or not?

If not, and if this was not revealed before the shoot, then the case for misrepresentation and dishonesty is solid. Shame on the model for doing this.

If the model had the physical configuration for the gig and the photographer had a problem with her (we’re now assuming the model is a woman?) past history, then this is on the photographer. He has no right to police her personal life if she meets all other requirements.

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
Are you really concerned with honesty?

M A R K wrote:
Yup. I'm surprised that you think I might not be - but I guess that says more about you than it does me.

Well, congratulations on being the moral standard bearer for the modeling profession. Last time I checked, models were not expected to adhere to a morality clause in a contract. We generally expect models to look like their profiles, disclose any barriers to doing the job, show up on time and behave professionally. What more is needed?

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Is it misleading?  Hell yeah it is. Men have rough skin, big hands and a penis. So yeah that qualifies as misleading. lol

Agreed! Just as it would be for anything that was different than what the model had advertised. Personally, I would not have gone ahead with the shoot (love your ability to roll with that, BTW).

Loki Studio wrote:
All members have a responsibility to provide accurate information.  For models this clearly includes gender, or at least provide full obvious disclosure in their profile.

We still seem to be hung up on the unseen aspects of a model's history as opposed to her appearance.

Michelle Genevieve wrote:

You still haven't made your case. Why is this so complex? What are the damaging consequences?

Are you really concerned with honesty? Is there some moral code in this matter that must not be transgressed?

What are the consequences when a pretending photographer turns out to be a non-photographer at all? Or a mass murderer? Will you rebel against moral code and honesty if that happens to you?

"Full disclosure" is not a job requirement if the body appearance fulfills the photo concept requirements.

Since when revealing gender is a "full disclosure"?

Does the model also need to disclose if she's a recovering alcoholic? If she's overdue on her rent payment? If she sued for wages the last photographer who didn't pay her?

I guess you never even look at the work of the people you work with. You just pick a random guess and show up at the shoot. I have news for you: there are companies and agencies who require clean criminal record, history of non-addiction etc. In fact you will never get a job at a serious company without that.

Or are you worried that another model (or perhaps you as the photographer) just might not be comfortable with someone who does not accept what might be seen as conformity to social norms?

Non-conformity to social norm does not imply an attempt to impose the opposite norm. This is not an understanding of non-conformity but just a reaction. So you are simply falling into another conformity which is just the same.

Just because someone rejects what others demand of them doesn't mean they're lying. It merely means they're living their own life on their terms.

One can create any illusion and follow it but that doesn't mean others have an obligation to respect it and follow it too. Everyone is free to question everything. If you claim others have to respect your illusion, that is just the same you claim to be rejecting - you are demanding from them to conform to your ideas. You are contradicting yourself.

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
Well, congratulations on being the moral standard bearer for the modeling profession.

Since when has expecting people to be open and honest in their dealings with others been akin to being a moral standard bearer - that's just day-to-day human decency isn't it?

anchev wrote:
What are the consequences when a pretending photographer turns out to be a non-photographer at all?  . . . I guess you never even look at the work of the people you work with.

You’re starting to go far afield in this conversation. Of course I look at photographers’ work! And I also look at models’ work when I book them. But I don’t care if the photog has had professional training or uses high end equipment. What I care about is if the work he does looks like what I want. This is not dishonest if he fails to disclose how he does it.

Remember, this is an image business. The honesty part has to do with HOW we conduct that business. If the photographer (or model) does good work and treats me well, that’s what I require.

anchev wrote:
Or a mass murderer? Will you rebel against moral code and honesty if that happens to you?

Let’s stay on topic, shall we?

anchev wrote:
I have news for you: there are companies and agencies who require clean criminal record, history of non-addiction etc. In fact you will never get a job at a serious company without that.

And when I work for those companies I comply. And when I work for a photographer I comply with his requirements as well.

Again I ask - did this model comply with the photographer’s requirements?

anchev wrote:
If you claim others have to respect your illusion, that is just the same you claim to be rejecting - you are demanding from them to conform to your ideas. You are contradicting yourself.

This is not a matter of “respecting an illusion”. Did the model look like her profile or not? If she did, and if she met the stated requirement, then there is no dishonesty or illusion. It's as simple as that.

M A R K wrote:
Since when has expecting people to be open and honest in their dealings with others been akin to being a moral standard bearer - that's just day-to-day human decency isn't it?

You seem to be dodging the question. Did the model deliver what the photographer asked for, or not? If she did then she's being open and honest. If she knew this was going to be a female nude shoot and she showed up with boy parts she was dishonest.

But (assuming the job requirements were met) if there was something in her past that the photographer thought was important and didn't ask that doesn't make HER dishonest. It makes HIM inattentive. Putting the requirement for her to foresee and address someone else's unknown concerns is inappropriate.

I prefer to date nonsmokers. In fact, it's important to me, so much that I ask up front before the date happens. To a smoker, this is a non-issue. It would be unfair and inappropriate for me to make them responsible for my hangup about smoking, especially if I didn't make that known beforehand. But if they didn't tell me they wouldn't be dishonest.

anchev wrote:

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
You still haven't made your case. Why is this so complex? What are the damaging consequences?

Are you really concerned with honesty? Is there some moral code in this matter that must not be transgressed?

What are the consequences when a pretending photographer turns out to be a non-photographer at all? Or a mass murderer? Will you rebel against moral code and honesty if that happens to you?

"Full disclosure" is not a job requirement if the body appearance fulfills the photo concept requirements.

Since when revealing gender is a "full disclosure"?

Does the model also need to disclose if she's a recovering alcoholic? If she's overdue on her rent payment? If she sued for wages the last photographer who didn't pay her?

I guess you never even look at the work of the people you work with. You just pick a random guess and show up at the shoot. I have news for you: there are companies and agencies who require clean criminal record, history of non-addiction etc. In fact you will never get a job at a serious company without that.


Non-conformity to social norm does not imply an attempt to impose the opposite norm. This is not an understanding of non-conformity but just a reaction. So you are simply falling into another conformity which is just the same.


One can create any illusion and follow it but that doesn't mean others have an obligation to respect it and follow it too. Everyone is free to question everything. If you claim others have to respect your illusion, that is just the same you claim to be rejecting - you are demanding from them to conform to your ideas. You are contradicting yourself.

THIS IS A STUPID STATEMENT,
What are the consequences when a pretending photographer turns out to be a non-photographer at all? Or a mass murderer? Will you rebel against moral code and honesty if that happens to you?

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
You’re starting to go far afield in this conversation. Of course I look at photographers’ work! And I also look at models’ work when I book them. But I don’t care if the photog has had professional training or uses high end equipment. What I care about is if the work he does looks like what I want. This is not dishonest if he fails to disclose how he does it.

The etymological meaning of the word honest is "free from fraud". It does not mean "disguised faker playing clever tricks".

Remember, this is an image business. The honesty part has to do with HOW we conduct that business. If the photographer (or model) does good work and treats me well, that’s what I require.

How about what the other party's requirements?

Let’s stay on topic, shall we?

I don't know. You seem to be fighting the topic, not staying on it. I am just discussing the implications of all that. If you don't mind (or even if you do).

Again I ask - did this model comply with the photographer’s requirements?

Obviously not. Otherwise there would be no thread about it.

This is not a matter of “respecting an illusion”. Did the model look like her profile or not? If she did, and if she met the stated requirement, then there is no dishonesty or illusion. It's as simple as that.

No, it is not. This is not a simplicity but a clever trick. Simplicity is not to over-complicate things and mask them under a look. A simple person never cares about looks. He/she cares about clarity and that is true honesty, not the way you look.

BTW it is part of the MM's terms that the profile info should not be fake.

anchev wrote:
The etymological meaning of the word honest is "free from fraud". It does not mean "disguised faker playing clever tricks".

We still don’t know that this happened. We still don't know that an evil model was deliberately deceiving some hapless photographer.

anchev wrote:
How about what the other party's requirements?

How about them? What were they? Were those requirements met?

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
Again I ask - did this model comply with the photographer’s requirements?

anchev wrote:
Obviously not. Otherwise there would be no thread about it.

Still not obvious. All that is obvious is that this thread is full of speculation.

anchev wrote:
This is not a simplicity but a clever trick. Simplicity is not to over-complicate things and mask them under a look. A simple person never cares about looks. He/she cares about clarity and that is true honesty, no the way you look.

You are attaching way too much moral certainty to an uncertain situation. Just because someone does not conform to your idea of what is honest that does not make them dishonest.

Again, we go back to what was asked vs. what was delivered. Unless the photographer was engaged in photography at the cellular level and was taking photos of chromosomes we still don’t know what happened.

anchev wrote:
BTW it is part of the MM's terms that the profile info should not be fake.

Then clearly, we need to jettison all of those profiles belonging to 99 year old models!

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
You are attaching way too much moral certainty to an uncertain situation. Just because someone does not conform to your idea of what is honest that does not make them dishonest.

It is not my idea. It is the definition. Check the dictionary. If you want to speak in your own language asserting your personal meanings which you give to words, then you can't expect to come to understanding with anyone. You would basically be talking to yourself.

Again, we go back to what was asked vs. what was delivered. Unless the photographer was engaged in photography at the cellular level and was taking photos of chromosomes we still don’t know what happened.

Ok. Keep trying to convince the OP that he received what he was looking for ignoring that he clearly said he did not.

Good luck.

anchev wrote:
Ok. Keep trying to convince the OP that he received what he was looking for ignoring that he clearly said he did not.

You keep saying this was clearly stated. It was not.

Steve Black Photography wrote:
. . . on the day of the shoot i find out model was opposite the sex i was looking to shoot.

What happened? Was he expecting a sveldt and feminine woman and he got some macho dude?

Was he expecting a womanly woman and got a linebacker in a sun dress?

Was he expecting a nude female and he got a nude female-looking person with a penis?

Or was he just not expecting that the model, although otherwise satisfactory in all other respects, would reveal to him that she used to be a man? Or a woman? We still don't know who he was expecting to shoot.

We still don't know what the disconnect was, and we still don't know if anyone was dishonest or just inattentive to details.

Everyone seems to be projecting their own moral codes onto this little drama with very little information. Please stop trying to make this a moral issue when we simply don't know much about what happened.

Michelle Genevieve wrote:

You keep saying this was clearly stated. It was not.


What happened? Was he expecting a sveldt and feminine woman and he got some macho dude?

Was he expecting a womanly woman and got a linebacker in a sun dress?

Was he expecting a nude female and he got a nude female-looking person with a penis?

Or was he just not expecting that the model, although otherwise satisfactory in all other respects, would reveal to him that she used to be a man? Or a woman? We still don't know who he was expecting to shoot.

We still don't know what the disconnect was, and we still don't know if anyone was dishonest or just inattentive to details.

Everyone seems to be projecting their own moral codes onto this little drama with very little information. Please stop trying to make this a moral issue when we simply don't know much about what happened.

No,no,no...it is very simple, stop trying to make it complicated and illogical. He was expecting a female model. That means an anatomically born woman. That is not what showed up for him. People are either born male or female. That is what the OP is refering to; not what gender the model thinks they are. Simple.

Michelle Genevieve wrote:
You keep saying this was clearly stated. It was not.

And you keep saying that everyone who does not comply to your disagreements is some moral inquisitor. I can still read though:

Steve Black Photography wrote:
and on the day of the shoot i find out model was opposite the sex i was looking to shoot.

+ the thread name directly says the photographer feels mislead.

I have no idea what you are fighting for but this is not a thread about the rights of trans gender people or social norms. It is a thread about being truthful to people you work with. And I think we should be.

Finished.