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.
