How to think about trans people

Farscry wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

So you're just not reading Hyp's posts where she lays out how its insulting to the entire group then?

I would suggest then that trans people pick a new poster girl than a disgraced traitor. There isn't going to be a lot of sympathy to Manning's situation or feelings from the general populace.

Precisely. If someone has a crisis of conscience and does what their internal moral compass tells them is right, rather than what the law says, then they are completely undeserving of basic human dignity and respect.

Sorry, did the discussion switch to Snowden? Because I know you're not talking about Manning here.

Yes, I am.

That's ok, you're welcome to smear me the same way you're slathering emotionally charged cutdowns on Manning.

I think we covered this pretty deeply in the Manning-traitor thread. Nothing in that link deals with Manning's indescriminate dumping of data.

Nevin73 wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

So you're just not reading Hyp's posts where she lays out how its insulting to the entire group then?

I would suggest then that trans people pick a new poster girl than a disgraced traitor. There isn't going to be a lot of sympathy to Manning's situation or feelings from the general populace.

Precisely. If someone has a crisis of conscience and does what their internal moral compass tells them is right, rather than what the law says, then they are completely undeserving of basic human dignity and respect.

Sorry, did the discussion switch to Snowden? Because I know you're not talking about Manning here.

Yes, I am.

That's ok, you're welcome to smear me the same way you're slathering emotionally charged (and legally inaccurate) cutdowns on Manning.

Farscry wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Does it matter? There's a reason they chose the phrase "basic human dignity and respect."

This. This is my real point. And why I 100% back Hypatian in this thread.

That's part of the point i was trying to make though. Once someone is labeled traitor there's large swathes of the population that think that person is no longer deserving of "basic human dignity and respect". I dont agree, but i strongly suspect that those that dont agree are outnumbered by those that do.

To be fair, it wasn't snark, but to differeniate that thread from this thread that is focused on Manning's gender.

ranalin wrote:
Farscry wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Does it matter? There's a reason they chose the phrase "basic human dignity and respect."

This. This is my real point. And why I 100% back Hypatian in this thread.

That's part of the point i was trying to make though. Once someone is labeled traitor there's large swathes of the population that think that person is no longer deserving of "basic human dignity and respect". I dont agree, but i strongly suspect that those that dont agree are outnumbered by those that do.

And that's why I've gotten my back up and been posting to point out that Manning's "traitor" status is emotionally charged rhetoric, not backed up by reality.

That part of the debate I've moved over to the Manning thread

Nevin73 wrote:

To be fair, it wasn't snark, but to differeniate that thread from this thread that is focused on Manning's gender.

Understood; I've edited my last post accordingly.

Hypatian wrote:

And yet, I haven't heard any other traitors be called a different gender.

It's fair game... but only if you're different.

Respectfully, no.

It's fair game because Manning made it fair game by using a lack of treatment for gender dysphoria as a partial justification for "snapping" and leaking the files. Nobody on these forums made that connection, Manning did. So in this specific case where it's not just about respecting someone's internal gender image, it's totally reasonable to see accepting this as contributing to the justification of an unjustifiable act.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's fair game because Manning made it fair game by using a lack of treatment for gender dysphoria as a partial justification for "snapping" and leaking the files. Nobody on these forums made that connection, Manning did. So in this specific case where it's not just about respecting someone's internal gender image, it's totally reasonable to see accepting this as contributing to the justification of an unjustifiable act.

Hi. Please quote the portion of Manning's sentencing hearing in which that was done. Thanks.

Also note that I don't see the chain of logic in which "X was used as a mitigating factor during sentencing" makes it OK to attack a person based on X. Would it be OK to call a traitor "n----r" if they claimed that they were being discriminated against based on their race and that this was placing stress on them?

Hypatian wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's fair game because Manning made it fair game by using a lack of treatment for gender dysphoria as a partial justification for "snapping" and leaking the files. Nobody on these forums made that connection, Manning did. So in this specific case where it's not just about respecting someone's internal gender image, it's totally reasonable to see accepting this as contributing to the justification of an unjustifiable act.

Hi. Please quote the portion of Manning's sentencing hearing in which that was done. Thanks.

It was one of the central issues presented by the defense at the sentencing hearing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...

Earlier, an Army psychologist said Manning's private struggle with his gender identity in a hostile workplace put incredible pressure on the soldier.

Manning eventually came out to Capt. Michael Worsley and e-mailed the therapist a photo of himself wearing a wig of long, blond hair and lipstick. The photo was attached to a letter titled "My problem," in which Manning describes his issues with gender identity and his hope that a military career would "get rid of it."

Worsley testified at Manning's sentencing hearing at Fort Meade, near Baltimore. He said the soldier had little to no support base.

"You put him in that kind of hyper-masculine environment, if you will, with little support and few coping skills, the pressure would have been difficult to say the least," Worsley said. "It would have been incredible."

Nevin73 wrote:

Yes I agree with this. Gabe from PA might want to be called Batman, but it ain't going to happen. I have no problem referring to Manning with the female pronouns (and have made an effort to do so) but I won't be calling her a name that isn't legally hers.

You do understand that what you've said is at the very heart of this matter, and one of the most incredibly insulting and prejudiced things you could possibly say, right?

By comparing someone's desire to be called a name that matches their gender with the desire to be called the name of a superhero, you just said in essence that trans people are delusional. (Which is exactly why Krahulik was roasted alive for saying that himself.)

Look: I understand that a lot of people think Manning is a traitor and did things that deserve punishment. [em]I[/em] think that.

But this isn't punishment. You don't need to go there. You particularly don't need to go there when you know how much it hurts other people who don't deserve punishment.

Just stick with calling Manning a piece of sh*t no-good waste of breathable air and leave it at that. Is that so hard?

Hypatian wrote:

By comparing someone's desire to be called a name that matches their gender with the desire to be called the name of a superhero, you just said in essence that trans people are delusional. (Which is exactly why Krahulik was roasted alive for saying that himself.)

And it should be noted again--ironically, Gabe's legal name isn't "Gabe."

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's fair game because Manning made it fair game by using a lack of treatment for gender dysphoria as a partial justification for "snapping" and leaking the files. Nobody on these forums made that connection, Manning did. So in this specific case where it's not just about respecting someone's internal gender image, it's totally reasonable to see accepting this as contributing to the justification of an unjustifiable act.

Hi. Please quote the portion of Manning's sentencing hearing in which that was done. Thanks.

It was one of the central issues presented by the defense at the sentencing hearing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...

From the article you quoted, this portion lends a different perspective on this claim. The gender dysphoria added to the stress she was under, but was not central to the established motive for Manning making the leaks:

Navy Capt. David Moulton, a psychiatrist who spent 21 hours interviewing Manning at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., after his arrest, testified as a defense witness that Manning's gender identity disorder combined with narcissistic personality traits, post-adolescent idealism and his lack of friends in Iraq caused him to reasonably conclude he could change the world by leaking classified information.

"He became very enthralled with this idea that the things that he was finding were injustices that he felt he morally needed to right," Moulton said.

He said Manning was struggling to balance his desire to right wrongs with his sense of duty to complete his Army tasks and his fear of losing his GI benefits and the opportunity to attend college.

"His decision-making capacity was influenced by the stress of his situation for sure," Moulton said. "He was under severe emotional stress at the time of the alleged offenses."

Hypatian wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Yes I agree with this. Gabe from PA might want to be called Batman, but it ain't going to happen. I have no problem referring to Manning with the female pronouns (and have made an effort to do so) but I won't be calling her a name that isn't legally hers.

You do understand that what you've said is at the very heart of this matter, and one of the most incredibly insulting and prejudiced things you could possibly say, right?

You just said, in essence, that trans people are delusional. (Which is exactly why Krahulik was roasted alive for saying that himself.)

I understand the PA reference though I only used it to highlight my point that we don't always get what we want. It popped in my head because of the gender discussion link and that is all. I don't understand the train of thought that takes me to stating that trans people are delusional.

Hypatian wrote:

Would it be OK to call a traitor "n----r" if they claimed that they were being discriminated against based on their race and that this was placing stress on them?

That's a spurious comparison because the n-word implies an inherent inequality between races, there's no similar inequality being implied between genders.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Would it be OK to call a traitor "n----r" if they claimed that they were being discriminated against based on their race and that this was placing stress on them?

That's a spurious comparison because the n-word implies an inherent inequality between races, there's no similar inequality being implied between genders.

No, but there is a similar inequality often implied in our society between cis* and trans* individuals.

And I would like to ask (and this is asked with sincerity...no snark) - do we (I'll go with the general public here) get credit (credit for not being offensive to trans people, I should say) for using the correct pronoun in reference to Manning but not her preferred name or is it an all or nothing thing?

Thanks, Norman. Now would you care to address the point I edited in, regarding proper treatment in similar cases?

To expand on that mitigating factor with the other pertinent details:

Manning went to her superior officer with "her problem". In a sane, good world the right response to this would be to get her the counseling and support she needs. In a less perfect world (ours), she should have been discharged from the military, because trans* people are not allowed to serve. Instead, she was encouraged to keep silent about it and continue to serve, because the unit was under-staffed. Note that I can't imagine anyone going to their superior while [em]knowing[/em] that it means an end to their career unless sh*t has gotten pretty bad and they're in serious need of help.

This doesn't abrogate her responsibility at all. She still committed treason. She still knew it was wrong. She was still responsible.

Does it mitigate things? Does the incredible stress she was under make it more understandable that she would do something stupid? I really don't know. And, I don't know how the people who sentenced her factored it in, if at all.

I can say, however, that I cannot imagine a situation in which it's appropriate to coerce someone not to receive the help they need in this sort of scenario. That whole thing was very very messed up, and illustrates how very broken the military's handling of transgender people is.

It's horribly broken, but it doesn't excuse anything at all.

But no, it doesn't make things fair game, any more than a Black soldier who was goaded to strike a superior officer by that officer's using racial slurs describing that situation would make racial slurs fair game.

Hypatian wrote:

She still committed treason.

*cough*

Yes, I'm anal retentive, but I'd really love if people would stop saying that when it's not a fact.

Nevin73 wrote:

And I would like to ask (and this is asked with sincerity...no snark) - do we (I'll go with the general public here) get credit (credit for not being offensive to trans people, I should say) for using the correct pronoun in reference to Manning but not her preferred name or is it an all or nothing thing?

It's complicated. On the one hand, it's at least not rejecting trans* identities. On the other, it also shows a lack of understanding of trans* realities.

As I mentioned before, a lot of trans* people are in situations where they cannot change their legal names. But names in our society are for the most part very strongly gendered. Because of that, most of us are going to ask people to begin using new names well before we're ready for any legal procedures to make changes. We understand that in legal contexts, our legal name will continue to be used. But general use to refer to people isn't a legal context.

So there's still an element of "not willing to treat this person with the same respect you would treat a cis person".

Using correct pronouns and avoiding the use of the incorrect name would be a reasonable compromise position, I guess.

Farscry wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

She still committed treason.

*cough*

Yes, I'm anal retentive, but I'd really love if people would stop saying that when it's not a fact.

No, I'm afraid that it is a fact, one which she admitted. She didn't commit "the highest form of treason", but in willfully violating her oath to preserve the secrecy of classified material, she most definitely committed treason, just as I would be committing treason if I did so.

Farscry wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Would it be OK to call a traitor "n----r" if they claimed that they were being discriminated against based on their race and that this was placing stress on them?

That's a spurious comparison because the n-word implies an inherent inequality between races, there's no similar inequality being implied between genders.

No, but there is a similar inequality often implied in our society between cis* and trans* individuals.

Precisely. Treating the gender of trans* people as "less real" or "less important" than the gender of cis people pretty obviously discounts the reality or importance of the gender of trans* people.

Hypatian wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

She still committed treason.

*cough*

Yes, I'm anal retentive, but I'd really love if people would stop saying that when it's not a fact.

No, it is a fact, one which she admitted. She didn't commit "the highest form of treason", but in willfully violating her oath to preserve the secrecy of classified material, she most definitely committed treason, just as I would be committing treason if I did so.

No, she was acquitted of treason and found guilty of espionage. But if we want to debate that further let's take it to the other thread instead of letting me derail this one even further.

Farscry wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's fair game because Manning made it fair game by using a lack of treatment for gender dysphoria as a partial justification for "snapping" and leaking the files. Nobody on these forums made that connection, Manning did. So in this specific case where it's not just about respecting someone's internal gender image, it's totally reasonable to see accepting this as contributing to the justification of an unjustifiable act.

Hi. Please quote the portion of Manning's sentencing hearing in which that was done. Thanks.

It was one of the central issues presented by the defense at the sentencing hearing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...

From the article you quoted, this portion lends a different perspective on this claim. The gender dysphoria added to the stress she was under, but was not central to the established motive for Manning making the leaks:

That's exactly what I said - it was a partial justification.

Edit: Sorry, I mean, what I said originally - I see you were referring to the second part of that quote. My bad

Nevin73 wrote:

We just aren't caling her Chelsea because (in my case) I just can't be bothered to make the mental shift and I don't care what Manning wants to be called.

I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous this statement is. You "can't be bothered to make the mental shift", but yet you're willing to argue for pages about it. There's no "can't be bothered" here, because that implies laziness. The laziest course of action would have been to just start calling her Chelsea, instead of making a conscious decision to continue calling her Bradley and arguing with everyone who calls you out on it. You are putting a lot of effort into being insulting towards someone who will never read your posts. The only people you're actually insulting are the people arguing with you on this forum. If you have such a burning desire to insult Manning directly, write her a f*cking letter or something.

If you don't care, then why do you keep arguing about it? If you don't care, then why do you clearly prefer one name over another?

If you truly didn't care, most of this thread wouldn't have happened.

muttonchop wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

We just aren't caling her Chelsea because (in my case) I just can't be bothered to make the mental shift and I don't care what Manning wants to be called.

I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous this statement is. You "can't be bothered to make the mental shift", but yet you're willing to argue for pages about it. There's no "can't be bothered" here, because that implies laziness. The laziest course of action would have been to just start calling her Chelsea, instead of making a conscious decision to continue calling her Bradley and arguing with everyone who calls you out on it. You are putting a lot of effort into being insulting towards someone who will never read your posts. The only people you're actually insulting are the people arguing with you on this forum. If you have such a burning desire to insult Manning directly, write her a f*cking letter or something.

Except I'm not trying to insult Manning. I just don't care what she wants to be called.

Edit: I should explain further that I (nor do I believe anyone here) is trying to be intentionally insulting. This is an ongoing discussion (kind of the point of thread like this) that, as far as I have seen, hasn't gotten out of control. I was simply explaining why I don't intend on refering to Manning as Chelsea. And for me specifically, it isn't about the trans community at all, simply about how I was referring to an individual person within the context of how I came to be aware of them. In point of fact, I don't generally refer to Manning by her first name at all, so it's a bit of a moot point.

So when a member of the trans community says they're insulted by this, that doesn't make you think about not doing it anymore? Because you don't care about Manning?

Nevin73 wrote:
muttonchop wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

We just aren't caling her Chelsea because (in my case) I just can't be bothered to make the mental shift and I don't care what Manning wants to be called.

I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous this statement is. You "can't be bothered to make the mental shift", but yet you're willing to argue for pages about it. There's no "can't be bothered" here, because that implies laziness. The laziest course of action would have been to just start calling her Chelsea, instead of making a conscious decision to continue calling her Bradley and arguing with everyone who calls you out on it. You are putting a lot of effort into being insulting towards someone who will never read your posts. The only people you're actually insulting are the people arguing with you on this forum. If you have such a burning desire to insult Manning directly, write her a f*cking letter or something.

Except I'm not trying to insult Manning. I just don't care what she wants to be called.

Well, that's your call then, Bob. You're name's not Bob? Well, sorry Bob. I really don't care to make that mental shift now that I think of you as Bob.

Would that be insulting to you? Would you consider me a jerk (on the basis of that statement, anyway :lol:) if I said that in anything other than an ironic/point-making way?

Hyp, I am having a trouble discerning between what appears to be two overlapping claims -- for an identity, and for a gender identity. What I don't fully grasp is the agiotage around the Chelsea part of the deal. While the legal name change is pending, do I indeed exhibit undue callousness and insensitivity to the transgender issues if I continue to refer to her as Bradley, don't refer to her by first name at all, or even refer to her by any arbitrary female name, e.g. Samantha Whatsherface Manning, since it still does acknowledge her gender identity? Or is it a transgression more along the lines of incorrect references to branding/identity, such as calling Mary Kate And Ashley Olsen "the Olsen twins", or saying "Marc Sinclair Vincent" instead of "Vin Diesel", calling Samuel L. Jackson simply (gasp!) Samuel Jackson, or not keeping up with the currently chosen names of P. Diddy or Snoop Dogg?

To make it clearer where I stand in the context of the whole issue: I don't have any issues with accepting Manning a female, and I do believe strongly that she is a hero. Making the disclosures to WikiLeaks, she basically sacrificed her freaking life. But for the critics, it is not enough -- they also demand that she should have be a saint. I do believe she should be able to get the gender reassigment treatment.

Edit: eh, not my place.

Demosthenes wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
muttonchop wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

We just aren't caling her Chelsea because (in my case) I just can't be bothered to make the mental shift and I don't care what Manning wants to be called.

I just wanted to highlight how ridiculous this statement is. You "can't be bothered to make the mental shift", but yet you're willing to argue for pages about it. There's no "can't be bothered" here, because that implies laziness. The laziest course of action would have been to just start calling her Chelsea, instead of making a conscious decision to continue calling her Bradley and arguing with everyone who calls you out on it. You are putting a lot of effort into being insulting towards someone who will never read your posts. The only people you're actually insulting are the people arguing with you on this forum. If you have such a burning desire to insult Manning directly, write her a f*cking letter or something.

Except I'm not trying to insult Manning. I just don't care what she wants to be called.

Well, that's your call then, Bob. You're name's not Bob? Well, sorry Bob. I really don't care to make that mental shift now that I think of you as Bob.

Would that be insulting to you? Would you consider me a jerk (on the basis of that statement, anyway :lol:) if I said that in anything other than an ironic/point-making way?

If you were referring to me, then my offense (or lack thereof) would be between us. If you were referring to a third party, then I would look at it as between you and the third party.

I've seen it compared to coming out as gay to "everyone" (i.e. not your close family/friends.).

EDIT: SB, your point was good from my understanding.