Xeni is talking about journalism style guides, not random comments on the Internet. Journalism style guides very much care. About everything. That is why some widely-used guides (like AP) are published in actual, annually updated books. With ring binding, so you can reference them easily and constantly. There’s a lot of thought put into what goes into a journalism style guide. To say otherwise means you’re woefully misinformed.
Whether it’s calculated or not, I’d argue that it’s still a pretty big insult to hear somebody say “This is who I am and how I would like to be addressed” and to continue to ignore that request because you just don’t give a crap.
…the provider refused to treat her and commented that she should ‘see a veterinarian,’ as a medical doctor was ‘a doctor for people’"
In light of this - and the fact that articles like this one were even necessary - I have the unfortunate suspicion that the heavy sentence given to Chelsea Manning wasn’t just intended as a threat to future whistleblowers; it was also an "opportunity " to re-enforce the hateful idea that transgendered people are “not people” or “sub-human”.
CNN’s implicit approval of such bigotry has not gone unnoticed.
Ostensibly, news agencies have the responsibility to report factual, objective, true information. News agencies should report that Manning now considers himself to be a woman. They should not report that Manning is a woman, because that is factually incorrect (or at the very least, considerably misleading).
On the other hand, transgendered individuals have valid interests and concerns that should be respected. They are facing immense challenges in defining themselves in a binary sex world. They should be treated fairly, and their concerns should be taken seriously by others.
I’m skeptical that these two competing concepts are so easily resolved, in either direction.
This is the most level-headed summary of the matter I’ve ever read. There is an editorial and linguistic dilemma here that will take time and intelligent solutions to resolve.
How the heck does someone changing one’s own name inspire CONTEMPT in you?
For the cosmetic surgery, it seems like you’re using the “wisdom of repungance” to justify your attitude.
In your world, what would we do with these contemptable ‘undesireables’ who dare cause you to make yourself uncomfortable through the person’s own dynamic life choices, since we clearly can’t simply accept them?
I resent the idea that a person’s preferred form of address is reduced to the level of an argument over em-dashes, however necessary and noble that discussion might be.
It’s not bigotry to be concerned about language. It IS bigotry to refuse someone the respect of their identity.
But mostly, I’m not sure, exactly, how there is anything even remotely complex about this issue. Does someone wish to be referred to by certain pronouns? Use those pronouns.
If Brad Pitt announces that he would like to be called Henry, how soon is the New York Times obliged to call him Henry? I think in that case they would not immediately call him Henry, but eventually would, when it would make sense to readers to call him Henry. But for a long time it would be “Henry Pitt, formerly Brad Pitt,” or “Brad a.k.a. Henry Pitt.” They would not simply call him Henry Pitt from the get go.
This is not at all to compare gender identity to something as unimportant as Brad Pitt changing his name, but editorially they present similar challenges. Bradley Manning is the name known to readers. To move immediately to Chelsea Manning, after just a single article explaining why, would not make sense to readers. Switching immediately to “she” can be similarly confusing, and understandably so.
It can take a transgender person a lifetime to understand their own true identity, so the idea that all humanity must instantly adapt at precisely the announced moment doesn’t make sense. I don’t know what the correct editorial decision is, but it’s certainly not as obvious as this article makes it seem.
Boston is fake blue. I lived there for six years and found pretty much everyone, even the supposed Ivy League intellectual (pseudo) liberals to be racist, homophobic and socially conservative.
When I was 8, my appendix was a couple of days away from bursting and my doctors removed it, saving my life. Was it dishonorable not to accept the hand I was dealt?
There’s a difference between accepting what you can’t change and resigning yourself to what’s difficult to change.
Help me out please, because the entire trans issue has always confused me. All civil rights issues to date have revolved around tolerance rather than acceptance. In other words, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t asking that people treat him nicely. He was asking that the government grant the same rights and persecute injustices equally.
Bigotry is defined as intolerance. e.g. If the term “black” becomes non-preferred for people of African descent, but is replaced with the term “melanin-heavy”, does it become intolerant for me to refer to someone as “black”? NO. It might be rude, but it isn’t intolerant. I am not making claims the person is inferior or trying to stop them from living a fulfilled life. I am simply using a non-preferred word.
The media has varied on how quickly they react to someone’s desire to alter their representation. Sometimes they are very obliging and sometimes they are not. Performance artists(such as musicians) are almost always referenced by their stage names.They even sometimes bend to rather elaborate requests such as only filming the band in B&W or with full makeup on. I cannot say that the same deference would/should be shown to a convicted criminal. If you remember the entire “Chad Ochocinco” debate, simply requesting a name change is not normally met with eager ears. I understand the desire of trans individuals to be perceived as something else, but no one in the world actually owes them anything. If your name is Nathanial, and you prefer Nate, no one is required to call you Nate. You receive that as a courtesy. They could call you “!@$#%” and it would be legal. I don’t imagine that many media outlets are in a hurry to be perceived as extending courtesy towards a convicted felon.
I believe stephen’s reply was directed at trefecta’s criticism of stephen’s statement that stephen had or could have contempt for someone who changed their name.
/nopronouns
From what we can tell:
We have no evidence that Manning has appeared in public as a woman (a private photo in a car that was sent to a friend is not the same thing). She is physically male and has a Y chromosome. Legally, she is Bradley Manning and male, as she has not legally changed her name. She has had no hormone treatment or surgery up to this point, and the reports I’ve read don’t even suggest that she has seen a psychiatrist yet. She hasn’t stated whether she even wants SRS. From what I can tell, this is literally the first time she has publicly given credence to the phone logs and rumors surrounding her identity. While I and many others are fine with referring to her as Chelsea and a woman, news organizations aren’t necessarily wrong to demand a more official and fact-based categorization.
Thanks for responding so kindly. I was really concerned about posting that. I am very excited about what I feel like is a revolution going on right now with gender norms, and I think this particular case of Chelsea Manning is especially interesting because of how the gender issues intersect with all the “Red State/Blue State” dogma divide happening right now.
What I try to understand that feels different is feeling so wrong in ones own body - not just, I wish I were another color or I wish I were taller, but, I got the wrong body and I have to change it in order to be me.
The process of physically transitioning is so intense, the people who do it must be tremendously motivated. It’s hard to relate and I really want to.
The closest thing I can relate to it is that I worked with a woman once who had a “boob job fund.” She’s the only person I ever met where I absolutely understood why she felt she NEEDED the surgery, because she was so flat chested she had to shop in the boy’s department. She looked prepubescent. So, I understood how she felt she needed that boob job to be a woman and I hope she got it. I guess it’s sort of similar but still she was still walking around in a woman’s body all the time and always had been.
It seems that being trans is more than about the acceptance of the outside world - that part I’m okay with and absolutely agree with that people should be accepted - but it is hard to wrap my head around that person’s process of inner acceptance that one’s body isn’t right in a fundamental way. I wish I could relate to that feeling more, because there is something about it that feels really self-destructive and I get extremely anxious thinking about how that must feel.
Assuming you’re using your real name (as it is the ‘honorable’ thing to do), check your privilege!
Not is everybody born into a socioeconomic position which grants them access to practically everything with some effort, nor is everybody is born into a loving family, nor is everybody born with / able to grow into a neurotypical mindset.
How is changing your name a ‘reshuffle’? It’s not like you’re born with it written on your head.
Even if it were written on your head, why would using technology to fix this be ‘dishonorable’? As danblondell said, isn’t the ‘reshuffle’ of modern medicine contemptable in your world? Is improving your life by using technology contemptable? Are gadgets and entertainment contemptable? They are conscious choices to change your life for pleasure, or ‘cosmetically’, if you will. It’s not like you were born with them, or even need them, right?
While, I take issue with your mindset of “life as a card game” (how often are you forced to play a card game?), the worse part is that you’re upset over some things that aren’t even naturally ‘dealt’ to people, you’re upset over people wanting to have control over what other people call them.
addedndum:
I think you’re confusing the analogy of ‘dealt cards’. ‘Cards’ are fundimental deterministic attributes. The ‘way you play them’ is everything else. I’d say the only real ‘card’ our requirement to follow the rules of physics. Everything else is a construction in someone’s mind.
