Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

zyan.scripts.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 179 posts

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#71

Post by threebees »

lisper wrote: post #57
davidcollantes wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying--your comment will be out of sight soon, by the way--but, does it hurts to "humour" someone? What do you lose or win? Why not just be nice to others?

I'm putting this here because wtbob's original comment was flagged to death and can no longer be replied to directly. Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it. It was a cogent and even a defensible claim. It was simply wrong, and flagging comments to death simply for being wrong is very, very dangerous. For one thing, it deprives people of the opportunity to explain to…

> Although I vehemently disagree with wtbob's comment, I think it was a mistake to flag it.

For what it's worth: I didn't see the comment in question, but based on context, I assume that reading it would have made me want to cry.

Maybe that's an unpopular emotion to express on HN, but that's what happens when a place you think of as a home suddenly makes you feel unwelcome and conditionally accepted.

So thank you, community, for saying that if someone wants to make any more "cogent claims" about the validity of my existence, they're welcome to do so, elsewhere.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#72

Post by vertex-four »

cmdrfred wrote: post #70
vertex-four wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of evidence over the past couple of decades that trans people are, in a specific way, intersex - specifically that trans people's brains often have characteristics closer to those of their identified gender than what they were assigned at birth. There's certainly lots of anecdotal evidence that many people's brains just seem to "work better" once on the correct hormones, and generally speaking transiti…

I'd like to see a source for this evidence please.

I haven't gone over these properly, so I can't actually argue for their validity, but Wikipedia claims that there are numerous studies which seem to argue the same things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#Brain...

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#73

Post by mikeyouse »

coldtea wrote: post #17
MichaelApproved wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her. I can understand not putting Chelsea on the front lines of the transgender rights battle. You need "clean" media stories to make a point. Chelsea's transgender story is easily sidetracked by the whistle blowing story.

So, like not wanting a gay black rights activist among black activism ranks in the fifties? I'd say the combined whistle blowing story make for an even better cause. Except if they only want to project domesticity (we're tame, accept us), not change.

Or how about not making a stand for civil rights on a young black woman who refused to move on a bus because she was a single mother?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin

Optics matter, these things are political and need to be as close to bulletproof as possible to make an impact.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#74

Post by lliamander »

henrikschroder wrote: post #66
frogpelt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Correct" is silly to even discuss relative to this topic. What you're saying is people's genders are now up for debate but the pronouns are not? Completely illogical. And somehow people still believe the "slippery slope" is a fallacy.

> "Correct" is silly to even discuss relative to this topic. How about "polite"? It's exactly as rude to use the wrong pronoun about a person, as it is to use the wrong name. It's common decency to call people what they want to be called, and it's not exactly hard to do either.

Politeness is culturally contingent. For example, I have lived in places where making a special effort to hold open doors for women is a social obligation, as well as places where it is deeply offensive.

Is it appropriate sometimes to violate those norms? Certainly, when those norms involve a violation of higher moral principles. Principles such as not saying things you believe to be false.

> How about "polite"?

So, you're saying that people should not openly disagree merely because it is impolite?

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#75

Post by wamsachel »

arca_vorago wrote: post #56

For those people who are curious about the act of disseminating information like Manning did, allow me to summarize. When you get a clearance, and often even when just working with confidential documents, the DoD has you sign an SF312, which is a classified information non-disclosure. When you join the military, one of your first acts is to be sworn in, and you swear an oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I w…

I think it's telling that we discuss Manning's violation to oath way more than the war criminals she exposed.

But I'm sure everyone is correct in that the people living in the middle east are pouring over the wikileaks looking for data instead of just looking out their window at the smoldering ruins left behind by a bomb

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#76

Post by niccaluim »

thr32989 wrote: post #2

> I will be Chelsea’s first visitor since her sister in November. > I bring up her recent appeal to reduce her sentence from 35 years to 10 years, and she seems worried that it didn’t receive enough coverage in the press. She hopes that the world hasn’t forgotten about her. I am afraid world has already forgotten. Google search for "site:news.ycombinator.com Chelsea Manning" for past month gives three results includi…

> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her [sic].

Speak for yourself.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#77

Post by Idontagree »

vertex-four wrote: post #65
Idontagree wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her medication doesn't change her biological makeup, science isn't that good yet. I'm happy to call anyone what they want, but surgery and drugs do not recreate your sex.

There's plenty of evidence over the past couple of decades that trans people are, in a specific way, intersex - specifically that trans people's brains often have characteristics closer to those of their identified gender than what they were assigned at birth. There's certainly lots of anecdotal evidence that many people's brains just seem to "work better" once on the correct hormones, and generally speaking transiti…

Yes, you are what you see physically, are you actually going to tell me that you don't think you're made of thousands upon thousands of atoms. Am I denying that it's possible for technology to change us at a cellular level? No, of course not, I'm only saying that we havn't gotten to that point, yet. Trans people are still by their DNA male or female, unless there's been some breakthrough I'm unaware of, but I don't think it's happened.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#78

Post by cmdrfred »

vertex-four wrote: post #72
cmdrfred wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see a source for this evidence please.

I haven't gone over these properly, so I can't actually argue for their validity, but Wikipedia claims that there are numerous studies which seem to argue the same things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#Brain...

The first study they cite[0] has a sample size of 6, that is not nearly enough to account for the claims they are making. The same with the 2000 study[1]. The 2009 study[2] has 24 subjects so it's slightly more authoritative but points to an entirely different part of the brain as a marker for transgenderism, it's results have yet to be replicated. I'm failing to find 'plenty of evidence' here. What sources made you come to that conclusion yourself?

[0] A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/TRANSGENDER.pdf

[1] Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.5.6564

[2] Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19341803

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#79

Post by logfromblammo »

JonFish85 wrote: post #38
Synaesthesia wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't forgotten. After reading this I'd like to write Chelsea. I'm also inspired to do more anti-prison and anti-solitary activism. This looks like a very touching book on solitary confinement - (Hell is a Very Small Place) http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Very-Small-Place-Confinement/dp/1...

Just a quick note that the solitary can also be a way to prevent a certain prisoner (like Manning) from being torn to pieces by the general prison population. Considering that Manning is in a military prison and is very unpopular amongst the military folks, and transgender to boot, it wouldn't surprise me if solitary is in Manning's best interests.

You are looking at a false dichotomy. Solitary and general population are not the only two options.

Solitary confinement is almost certainly being used by prison administrators for purposes far less appropriate than to protect the prisoner from harm, whenever that is the primary justification for using it.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#80

Post by vertex-four »

cmdrfred wrote: post #78
vertex-four wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't gone over these properly, so I can't actually argue for their validity, but Wikipedia claims that there are numerous studies which seem to argue the same things - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#Brain...

The first study they cite[0] has a sample size of 6, that is not nearly enough to account for the claims they are making. The same with the 2000 study[1]. The 2009 study[2] has 24 subjects so it's slightly more authoritative but points to an entirely different part of the brain as a marker for transgenderism, it's results have yet to be replicated. I'm failing to find 'plenty of evidence' here. What sources made you…

There is enough evidence for it to not be obviously false that, at the least, there's a significant structural difference between cis people's brains and transsexual people's brains, and some of those differences may fall along sexual differentiation lines. More research must be done!

In any case, it's actually more-or-less irrelevant in arguing whether a trans person is actually the gender they identify as, and is mostly a curiosity until it leads to more focused treatment. The bit that does matter is the last question - am I who I am in my head, or am I who you think I am?

Post reply on HN