Uh, Ulysses, you finding it interesting and it being interesting to others are about as far apart as Cheleas self identified gender and your opinion of it.
Exactly as far apart, actually. See what I mean?
1 Like
I appreciate your perspective on this, but please donât turn a blind eye to all the mainstream media outlets that had a virtual blackout on Manning for much of her trial, ignored the leaks for the most part and are now suddenly focusing like a laser on Manningâs gender statement.
Thatâs what I thought @LilSputums was saying. Itâs not you, itâs them.
Boing Boing, of course, covered Manning and the content of the leaks courageously and diligently from the beginning and itâs expected to see this post. But, please tell me you also see where the larger, mainstream media outlets are simply trying to use this as a distraction after attempting to ignore Manning and the content of the leaks for so long? Itâs obvious (at least to me) they are counting on homophobia to finish off the job of disparaging Manning and resigning her into obscurity.
Please donât give them a pass on that. Chelsea Manning is a hero to me and I think she deserves much, much better.
2 Likes
I donât give a pass on that. At all. Please understand that my point was more to address the idea (which I understood that poster to be expressing) that this wasnât worth talking about in any context and that any mention of it was nothing but a distraction. And I disagree that thatâs true.
2 Likes
All Iâm going to say is that youâve said something incredibly insulting to me, personally. I canât go into more detail than that.
Iâm deleting any posts I see that start with âcan we have a civil discussionâ and then flow immediately into baseless denigration of Chelsea Manning and trans people in general
Thank you, Maggie.
Now if youâd just give me their IP addresses itâd be really appreciated. I promise not to do any bad with them. 
1 Like
Shenanigans!
The Transgender Law Center quotes the AP style guide here:
http://www.transgenderlaw.org/press.htm
Boing Boing is actually in the wrong by captioning Manningâs photo the way they have. Itâs considered pretty rude to persist in using names and pronouns that mis-gender someone once theyâve expressed a preference, even when talking about them in the past. I hope theyâll fix the caption.
The caption is on a photo i first saw here on 8/14, pre announcement, soâŚ
1 Like
The point is, you donât have a choice. She IS a woman. If she said sheâs a toaster, sheâd be a toaster. Itâs not your choice to make for her. Now you can reject that person in your life, but you donât get to say who they are or arenât.
1 Like
Thank you. I was merely trying to point out that the letter Chelsea wrote to Obama is in many ways a much more important story to lead with today, but that it is easily buried under the sensationalistic nature of her gender identification. Mainstream news sources gotta make it sexy. I was just surprised that Boingboing led with this ârevelationâ and not with the more nuanced and beautifully written letter addressing motivations and confronting the corruption of power at the heart of our country. Sarcasm once again fails to translate in this medium.
My point wasnât that you were saying anything bad. My point is just that I donât necessarily think that Manningâs declaration of her own gender identity is a sensational thing that should always come second to her declaration of her motives for releasing information. YMMV. Both are news. Both are, I think, important.
3 Likes
Well, it was always fraud to sell fake drugs.
1 Like
Right, but once a person expresses a preference, references should be changed accordingly, including to events in the past. The Guardianâs story is a great example.
Believe what you will.
âElectiveâ doesnât mean unnecessary in this context. You say you understand that gender reassignment can be needed. Why wouldnât the state have a duty to provide needed treatment for people in its care?
2 Likes
But if you accept a transsexual personâs self-identified sex, then all their born physical sex characteristics are the evidence of their transsexuality.
1 Like
âRelax.â
No.
By the way, there was nothing particularly enlightening or not-distracting about your post. Just because you care more about one aspect of an issue doesnât make it the most important aspect. So stop trying to control discourse.
Itâs pointless and doesnât actually make you look any more legitimately concerned than anyone else.
2 Likes
Would Chelsea/Bradley die without medical intervention? Is there a guarantee that by removing the sex organs and providing hormone therapy that she will be happy and whatever emotional/mental anguish a person with gender issues endures will be resolved? And just because Manning has an internal gender conflict it still doesnât make the surgery necessary. Iâm fairly certain for milennia, people who felt they were of a different sex, kept on living, and probably easier than we do now, because the ideals of whatâs a woman or whatâs a man, werenât shoved down everyoneâs throats 24/7 by the consumer/media machine.
Itâs an interesting dichotomy⌠People who have lived it or have loved ones who have, see it as a must, but for those that havenât itâs really a muddy situation. And honestly I feel bad for the kid, because now heâll (and Iâm using heâll purposely) will most likely be confined solitary and or separated for the rest of the inmate population, because theyâll be able to spin some crap about fear for his mental state and uncertainty about what heâs capable of doing to the other inmates.
The whole story is sad end to end. Sad that sheâd run to the most macho club on earth as a career option, sad that at such a young age the burden of information was thrust upon her to the point where rational thought was thrown to the wind and the thinking that if I give myself as a martyr to the cause, something will change. Sad that the govnât would rather continue this destructive behavior than wake the hell up.
1 Like
Well those links sort out what the language probably should be. It is going to be interesting to see what language will be used in the history books say 50 years from now.
Itâs an interesting dichotomy⌠People who have lived it or have loved ones who have, see it as a must, but for those that havenât itâs really a muddy situation.
Doesnât that statement seem odd to you?
Clearly, many people (perhaps most people) are unable to think critically about things beyond their own direct experience, and are unable to empathize with people who arenât exactly like them. Hence, for example, people turning completely around on an issue once they find out a loved one is affected by it.
That doesnât make the actual situation âmuddyâ - it just shows ignorance. On an issue like this, the people to listen to are âpeople who have lived it or have loved ones who haveâ - everyone else can either support them (within reason) or STFU on things like this that donât affect them until theyâre no longer ignorant.
3 Likes
