To add to this and respond to sibling commenters (though the GP has withdrawn their comment):
I would really love to live in a world where Chelsea Manning's transgender identity and her very public transition would not affect how much some people might vilify her. But there are many people that are still very uncomfortable -- violently uncomfortable at times -- with transgender people (and generally people with non-binary/fluid gender identities).
Further, Manning's transition was very public, and her transition was likely for many people the first time we/they read a newspaper article or heard a news report that used a different pronoun for someone than they had previously. For people new and resistant to the idea, that might breed resentment.
Manning is not merely a transgender person, but a very high-profile transgender person. I think that this, by itself, and separate from her still-hotly-debated role in leaking classified material, articulates significant dangers that she faces in returning to civilian life.
it's on a different scale of threat though. It seems like a weird inclusion - the idea that being trans considerably increases the risk profile of someone who was an informant on the US military complex.
I think it does. It's a scenario where the whole is greater than the sum of parts.
Bradley (now Chelsea) was seen as a whiny dude who was not a team player, would not take his lumps, and lashed out irrationally against an institution he felt had wronged him. An attack on the entire concept of military thinking and discipline. The epitome of "bleeding heart liberalism".
Being trans into the bargain is fairly explosive. Now it's not just her actions that are offensive, but her very existence.
Think of it this way: I've perused enough local news comment sections to know that people who are inclined to find Chelsea Manning to be a traitor are also generally more inclined to hate trans people. So, maybe this doesn't increase the risk of her being targeted by trained assassins or government spies, but it does probably increase her risk of being targeted for a hate crime.
It's a bit much to expect science-journal standards of rigour in a Hacker News comment. Do you disagree with "people who are inclined to find Chelsea Manning to be a traitor are also generally more inclined to hate trans people"? It seems, at the very least, plausible.
Can you please provide some data to support this? I am unaware of any crime statistic that has transgender as an attribute. It is very easy to make broad sweeping statements like yours but to be taken seriously the majority of people prefer data to support those accusations.
> Statistics documenting transgender people's experience of sexual violence indicate shockingly high levels of sexual abuse and assault. One in two transgender individuals are sexually abused or assaulted at some point in their lives. Some reports estimate that transgender survivors may experience rates of sexual assault up to 66 percent, often coupled with physical assaults or abuse. This indicates that the majority of transgender individuals are living with the aftermath of trauma and the fear of possible repeat victimization.
It should be noted that Trans people aren't yet fully covered over hate crime laws so they get lumped in with general LGBT stats. This should change contingent on if the murder in Texas gets successfully prosecuted as a hate crime
While demanding data isn't necessarily a bad thing, you can take it overboard. If you state that the world is round, and I demand that you back up your claim with data, am I not being a bit ridiculous?
I don't think this is obvious at all. At least it isn't for me. It's a bit ridiculous to get so defensive and compare it to asking for evidence the world is round.
Gee, with attitudes like that, I wonder why trans folks often have to resort to jobs on the fringes of society with little safety, security, or legal protection?
