I think the "having been a whistleblower in the most powerful government on the planet" part of Chelsea's story is considerably more risky than the "is transgendered" part. There aren't many people running around "gunning for" trans people in the same sense that there are people "gunning for" informants. Primarily in the sense that in the latter case they use actual guns.
You might be surprised at how dangerous it is to be trans. Wikipedia maintains a list of unlawfully killed trans people at this page[1]
I guess there are more trans people than informants so maybe there's some statistical point to be made there, but frankly I'm not sure why you picked this nit to begin with. I think it's important to recognize, rather than downplay the risks faced by marginalized groups in the US and elsewhere.
I wasn't downplaying anything - and suggesting that I'm "downplaying the risks faced by marginalised groups" kind of poisons the well doesn't it? I was just questioning the idea that there are people out there "gunning for" trans people in a sense that is comparable to the rate that informants and whistleblowers are killed. I also have to point out that quite a small proportion of the linked murders seem to be hate crimes - and that trans women in the sex trade are at an even higher risk of murder or violence due to their work. I have every sympathy for victims of hate crimes, but to suggest that the average trans person is somehow at comparable risk of violent death to a government leaker is fallacious and that's what I was pointing out.
If you publish an unedited photograph, you could reasonably say that your photograph contains only the truth, and you can't be criticized for it. But if all of your photographs are of immigrants committing crimes, the fact that you've used your discretion to focus on this issue is nonetheless a political statement that's subject to criticism.
Similarly, if you go on social media to make posts about how being trans is not as dangerous as people seem to be implying, even if it contains a grain of statistical truth, you are making a certain point. Again, I think it's important to "photograph" the oppression faced by marginalized groups than to highlight ways this oppression is supposedly exaggerated.
Your point about my poisoning the well suggests you think I was trying to "call you out" or attack you, but that's not the case. I think we have a reasonable meta-disagreement about whether there is a political knock-on effect of highlighting different statistics or narratives. It's a disagreement two people of good faith can have.
As a Dutch person I was very confused for a minute, but then I remembered there are indeed lawfully killed people in other countries.
(And while writing this, I remembered euthanesia is legal here, but that's not killing in my mind because the person chose it for themselves and the given reason cannot be an external, solvable condition.)
It looks like it's particularly dangerous to be trans and black, and also very dangerous to be trans and hispanic, at least in the US over the past few years. It looks like Manning doesn't have much to worry about, at least for being trans.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-introduce... gender identity and expression has been added to Human Rights in British Columbia. But even here it's a recent development and the so called BC Liberals (in reality, they are conservatives, hello weird Canadian politics where the provincial parties have nothing to do with federal parties) voted down Mr. Chandra Herbert several times before turning around and introducing the bill themselves.
Fear, confusion, rejection, hostility, being cut off from your family...
I worried about all these things and all I was doing was coming out as gay. And I live in the UK, which has strong legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender, and a relatively accepting culture.
I can only imagine it was a thousand times worse to come out as trans. Or even to understand it in yourself - again, this took me years and I was "merely" discovering that I was gay.
Recent studies seem to peg the rate of regret of sex reassignment surgery as below five percent--a rate that has declined over time, which I presume is due to less ridiculous prejudice and hatred aimed downrange at them. I don't have journals access where I am at the moment, but one that I was able to track down on the Google machine:
(This study also omits the large proportion of transgendered folks who never get reassignation surgery and instead opt for HRT, or even no treatment whatsoever.)
But you don't care about that, of course. This post is for the people you would otherwise offend and hurt out of some peculiarity.
I'm going to have to ask for a citation confirming that trans people (there are trans men too) are killed on a daily basis in the USA. That sounds like hyperbole.
"including the USA" can be read as a qualifying statement that those murders include people in the USA, not necessarily that trans people are murdered on a daily basis in the USA.
Can you elaborate on that, datatan? I'm not saying lawless is necessarily correct, but from the confidence of your statement, it sounds like you have data to show otherwise. Would you mind sharing that? I feel it would make a good talking point in this thread.
I'd argue that the Collateral Murder videos triggered considerable controversy and criticism against the US military's attitude to airstrikes. The cable leaks also caused a fair amount of political embarrassment. So it depends on what you consider to be valuable - I'd say direct evidence of airstrikes being triggered against civilians with minimal oversight alone is valuable to a citizenry that wants to keep tabs on military accountability and push for change.
If Manning had only leaked the video in an attempt to bring light on what she perceived as a war crime, she would've had a case as a whistleblower. Indiscriminately leaking thousands of documents where she had no idea of the contents, is not whistleblowing. That's why she ended up with the sentence that she did.
Yeah, thats quite the wrong sort of airstrike. The good sort of airstrike is, where you sneak in the middle of the night in some village, where one bad guy sleeps - kill him, get caught - wake everyone up, and get in a chaotic shoot out with a medieval village, where raids by neighboring warlords are the norm.
Then when you get wounded you call a airstrike and eliminate the village.
One has to give it to the drone warriors- at least they send the commando duke of hazards to the unemployment office.
I think he meant exactly what he meant. Wasn't Manning still identifying as "he" when the leaks were done? Or was she already transitioned at that point?
I hate this whole walking on eggshells around gender/identity politics. It detracts from the discussion for no valid reason.
There aren't really any eggshells to walk on unless you're inventing them (and the person you replied to was not impolite about the correction). Chelsea Manning identifies as a woman. This isn't something that happens overnight; it's impossible for you or I or the great-grandparent to know when Manning decided to come out to family, friends, that sort of thing. As such, it's incumbent upon us to use the most currently, and thus least likely to inadvertently offend, pronoun and referents. (This is also why it is poor form to use a trans person's pre-transition name when referring to them in the past tense. In my experience, if a trans person would rather be described using that prior name or prior pronouns for his or her prior self, he or she will let you know.)
We're just gonna have to respectfully agree to disagree on some of this.
I don't go out of my way to be insensitive, but I'm not going to flush my DVD of The Matrix down the Memory Hole because it has "Wachowski Brothers" stamped on it. If the Wachowskis put out a new movie today, I'll reference them appropriately as the Wachowski sisters who produced it, but they simply weren't sisters when they created The Matrix, and I'll continue to reference the creators of that movie as brothers.
I saw a similar rewriting of history upstream in this thread, and I just can't let that slide. In fact, this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong, so there can really be no "correction" to call out. Someone (Manning) changed the rules mid-game, so it must be expected and tolerated that not everyone will parse the output of the remainder of the game to their liking.
Just out of curiosity, what happens to your perception of the importance of what someone should be called when a change of gender is taken out of the mix?
For instance, when Muhammad Ali won a gold medal in the 1960 Olympics and the heavyweight title in 1964, he was still going by his "slave name" of Cassius Clay; do you think it is reasonable - either for anyone or for someone who watched the matches at the time - to refer to the 1964 heavyweight champion as Cassius Clay, or should they just call him Muhammad Ali?
Women also frequently change their name, sometimes more than once, throughout their lives; if a woman marries and takes the name of her husband, or divorces and resumes use of her maiden name, would you continue to refer to her by her former name, even in reference to events that took place during her use of it, or would you simply update your nomenclature without complaint?
If Manning comes out and says that she is comfortable with the use of her prior name (there is a reason that in the trans community that prior name is referred to as one's "dead name", you get me?) and prior gender assignation, then sure, go for it.
Until then, I'm afraid that there's not really a whole heck of a lot that's respectful about your disagreement. Trans folks as a whole overwhelmingly evince preference for not having their prior name or gender identity thrown around and trans folks very regularly remain in the closet publicly even when they are out to friends and family, making your assumptions based on...well, not a whole heck of a lot. Unless you've read something I haven't (totally possible, but you'll forgive me if I doubt it), you have no idea of timing or the propriety here and so the presumption of her gender identity at that point is kinda actually really mean. You may have good intentions, but you're pissing in the pool and you should stop.
>this is an edge case where nobody is right or wrong
It's not some sort of edge case, the "right," (polite) way to refer to someone is the way they prefer to be refereed as. If someone named James introduces themselves as "Jimmy" and you refer to him as "James" and he says "it's Jimmy" and you say "Nuh uh your name on your birth certificate is James, you're wrong I'm right!!" you are just being a dick.
People change what they like to be called during their life all the time, that's not new nor is it an edge case. Kid nicknames go to the wayside of adult names/nicknames. I've known a "Peggie" who changed to "Margaret," an "Anthony" who changed to "Tony," and a "Robbie" who is now "Bob." In fact, many/most women change their name at some point in the future. It's normal/accepted/polite to call someone by their current name/pronoun even when referring to past actions.
If I recall a childhood story about my friend Tony I'm going to call him Tony in the story even if he went by Anthony at the time. It's weird/confusing/stupid to do otherwise and certainly not "rewriting history" or "changing the rules."
Do you believe that a person's gender is irrevocably tied to their biology? Do you believe in gender dysphoria? If so, how do you think it should be handled by society?
>it's incumbent upon us to use the most currently, and thus least likely to inadvertently offend, pronoun and referents
This only follows if the value of "not saying something that would be offensive to someone who isn't even party to the conversation" (a value which we violate without a second thought, sometimes even gleefully, when it doesn't involve an anointed "social justice" issue) outweighs the value of "communicating clearly and accurately". Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning. She was male, at least as far as anyone else was concerned.
It's one thing to request that people call you by a certain name and pronoun now - it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
> Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning. She was male, at least as far as anyone else was concerned.
Nobody is disagreeing with that. But using 'he' as a pronoun, even for things in the past, is weird and confusing. Do you call Marilyn Monroe 'Norma Jeane Mortenson' when talking about her childhood? No, of course not, because that confuse people.
Manning has been Chelsea and used 'she' for 4 years now, people now know her as a woman, and it makes sense to use that pronoun. Back in 2013, when Manning first came out as trans, maybe it would be alright to say 'Bradley' for a day or two when talking about her transition. But not now.
> it's quite another to insist that everyone pretend it has always been thus.
Quite frankly, it feel like you're just doing this to be transphobic and invalidate her identity.
Yup, since nothing he revealed indicated anything to whistle-blow on. All he did was unlawfully share material which turned his stomach — none of it was illegal, none of it was criminal, none of it was even unethical.
