Live data from Hacker News

Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

zyan.scripts.mit.edu

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Source?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something...

Nice article. Unfortunately articles are not data. It mentions a 2013 study but yet again with a peer group of 32 that is much too small to tell you anything, and gives no further information. That 2013 I can't seem to find, but the p value if the article is correct on sample size would also be quite low, though slightly higher than the previously mentioned studies.

If the difference is so clear in an MRI why not run a simple blinded study where researchers look at brain scans and tell you who is transgender and who is not? Such a study would not only prove this theory outright, but would likely make a researcher's career.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her. I like how you felt the need to take an anti-trans dig at the woman you're claiming to care about. That was classy.

I am not taking dig on Manning, but activists. Gender is irrelevant, what matters is 10 versus 35 years. And you proved my point.

She asked to be called female. This isn't about anonymous activists, it's about the specific human being you're pretending to care about.

But I was mostly referring to the way you implied that it's somehow the sole responsibility of a tiny and already-beleaguered minority to remember Manning. She's been largely forgotten by the tech press, by the liberal/progressive press, by America in general, and whose fault is that? Right, it's those nasty trans people! They're the ones who should be keeping the memory alive, not us!

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

I'm sorry, your point is that you think, so therefore reality is so? You can't think yourself into a different sex, I understand that they do see themselves as male or female despite their physical characteristics, but that has no bearing on much whether we like it or not. And to answer your question, you are your configuration of you, whether anyone perceives it or not, including yourself. I guess it's turning a bit…

Externally genitalia aren't the only physical characteristic, and if you judge by other physical characteristics that are testable now, though less obvious to a casual observer, transgender individuals are in many ways similar to their experiences gender more than their socially assigned gender. The biological differences between make and female aren't binary, treating them as if they are is an extreme simplification and treating external genitalia as the bright-line divider is increasingly evidently nonsensical given out knowledge of human biology and it's relation to psychology and behavior.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

I'm sorry, your point is that you think, so therefore reality is so? You can't think yourself into a different sex, I understand that they do see themselves as male or female despite their physical characteristics, but that has no bearing on much whether we like it or not. And to answer your question, you are your configuration of you, whether anyone perceives it or not, including yourself. I guess it's turning a bit…

> You can't think yourself into a different sex

No. You can think yourself into a different gender. Gender isn't sex - this has been written about since 1963, and is generally agreed on at this point - gender is a combination of personal and cultural mental attributes, while sex is generally "what your body physically is". This messes up slightly when you get to certain sex-driven gender attributes, but, in general, it's a reasonably clear line.

Sex is mostly irrelevant unless you're intending to sleep with someone or you're a doctor, and even then what you're asking about is generally a certain set of characteristics where a number of people fall between the lines. If you're a trans woman who's undergone GRS and you say "my sex is male", that's going to confuse an awful lot of people.

Edit: My specific point, in this response, is that identifying as a gender which does not match your sex is not "playing pretend" or less important somehow, as you insinuated in your original post.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#95
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…

> I am afraid world has already forgotten. Forgotten what? I think I'd like Chelsea personally, and I'm sorry for all that she has had to go through. But what is it, exactly, that we are supposed to be remembering and talking about here?

She systematically exfiltrated a lot of information which exposed several lies that the U.S. government was telling its citizens and the rest of the world. This information can be divided into four groups: Cablegate, Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, and the Afghan War.

The US government was telling U.S. citizens that the people who were stuck in Guantanamo Bay were very dangerous terrorists who would likely be responsible for the deaths of civilians if they were released, but could not be processed via normal US law for unknown reasons either. In fact they were largely being held not because of the danger they posed to society, but the intelligence that they could provide the US. Collateral damage included two British nationals and a journalist. It also made it clear that this intelligence was largely extracted via torture.

The US government had downplayed civilian deaths in Iraq, arguing that it wasn't a huge issue and that most of our killing was very reliable and well-targeted. The current estimates of civilian deaths are closer to 2:1, that's 2 civilians killed for each insurgent killed. I am not misspeaking when I say that: the current estimate is that the majority of deaths were civilian casualties. (One particular hot-button video showed two front-line reporters with cameras gunned down from a helicopter even after they'd apparently shown themselves to be not a threat; the video however lacks two pieces of context which somewhat ameliorate one's outrage: that one of the people they were with did have a rocket-propelled grenade, and that there was a lot of fighting in that region anyways: it was a preventable overstep rather than the murder that was claimed in the video description.)

The US government in Iraq indicated that they take reasonable precautions to prevent things like torture, prisoner degradation, and other abuse of force; these documents revealed that this was not quite correct: while the US government was certainly making efforts to keep its own nose clean in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, it often turned its back on similar awful practices happening at the behest of both the Iraqi police and the US mercenary corporations that it contracted, allowing them to go on with little objection and little indication to the rest of the world that these things were happening. In fact it was not just tacitly accepted, in many cases it was encouraged: US forces turned over thousands of prisoners to the Iraqi police, even though they knew that this was likely to cause them to be tortured and abused. It was damning that US forces ousted Saddam Hussein nominally for being awful to his own people (after we got into the war because he was nominally pursuing nuclear and biological weapons, which it turned out he wasn't), but then bolstered a follow-up regime which was just as awful to its own people.

A related disclosure of Afghan war documents revealed as I recall both the brutality of the Taliban and also surprised us by telling us that there was a good chance our nominal ally in rooting them out (Pakistan), was colluding with the Taliban behind the scenes. It was also a scandal for Canadians, who told their people that certain Canadian soldiers had died in a firefight with the Taliban when those documents appeared to document their dying because the US had accidentally dropped a bomb on them. For the US it was mostly scandalous because we'd understood that we were winning the war in Afghanistan; the results of these documents were much more bleak.

Finally Cablegate shocked the world because it revealed what US diplomatic informants were really saying. For example, US informants revealed a close connection between Putin and Berlusconi, and that Al Qaeda was getting its funding from Saudi Arabia, and that Qatar was a virtual safe haven for terrorists, and that Bashar al-Assad was systematically telling the US with his right hand that he wasn't arming Hezbollah while arming them with his left, and that the Yemeni government was systematically claiming responsibility for US counterterrorist operations in Yemen so that we wouldn't know that that was a front in the War on Terror. Other things emerged, e.g. the US was trading visits by President Obama for other people taking Guantanamo Bay prisoners off our hands; and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was embarrassed because he had privately called the then-heads of Iraq and Pakistan awful people; there were some other embarrassments in Cablegate too.

For her disclosure of these things, Chelsea (who at the time was nominally cisgendered and named Bradley) was detained and treated indecently to widespread criticism, and was finally convicted of every charge but the most severe, being sentenced for the remaining 21 crimes to 35 years in jail. This is despite the fact that her disclosure (in combination with WikiLeaks) was carefully redacted to protect vulnerable people, she won several awards around the globe for revealing the information that she did, and her disclosure ultimately caused the Arab Spring which was generally seen as a good thing for the US and democracy. It is hoped that Obama might commute her sentence at the end of his presidency, but that's a pretty slim hope; he has not publicly expressed any sympathy for her.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#96
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her', and a lot of trans activists and allies do spend an inordinate amount (which wouldn't be so necessary if people made even a small effort to get them correct) of time correcting people on pronouns, but there is a lot of work that transgender rights activists are doing for people in prison in general, and I do know that they've been involved with some of the work to help ens…

> The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her' No, the correct pronoun is 'him.' Chelsea Manning, despite his self-perception and despite his name change, is and always will be a man. Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. There are people who believe that they are disfigured even though they are perfectly normal looking; they are not disfigured, even though they believe so. Th…

Thank goodness you're here to police other people's identities.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#97
post #88
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The correct pronoun is 'her', not 'him/her' No, the correct pronoun is 'him.' Chelsea Manning, despite his self-perception and despite his name change, is and always will be a man. Gender is an objective, physical, biological fact, not a subjective experience. There are people who believe that they are disfigured even though they are perfectly normal looking; they are not disfigured, even though they believe so. Th…

wtbob: I vouched for your comment to un-kill it so I can post this response here where it should be rather than in a descendent comment. First and foremost, I vehemently disagree with you. But I think you made your point in a civil manner and supported it with an argument, and for that reason alone you deserve to be heard and responded to with civil arguments rather than by censorship. I may not agree with what you s…

That subjective experience is merely an identity based on cultural stereotypes of "man-ness" and "woman-ness".

> It is simple human decency to defer to how someone chooses to self-identify

If I decide to wear a fancy hat and call myself King of the World, should I expect everyone to call me that? No, because I'm not the King of the World.

It turns out people can be wrong about themselves, and we shouldn't pretend they are not. The idea that subjective experience is somehow sacred and immune from criticism is absurd and harmful.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#98
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wtbob: I vouched for your comment to un-kill it so I can post this response here where it should be rather than in a descendent comment. First and foremost, I vehemently disagree with you. But I think you made your point in a civil manner and supported it with an argument, and for that reason alone you deserve to be heard and responded to with civil arguments rather than by censorship. I may not agree with what you s…

That subjective experience is merely an identity based on cultural stereotypes of "man-ness" and "woman-ness". > It is simple human decency to defer to how someone chooses to self-identify If I decide to wear a fancy hat and call myself King of the World, should I expect everyone to call me that? No, because I'm not the King of the World. It turns out people can be wrong about themselves, and we shouldn't pretend the…

> The subjective experience is merely an identity based on cultural stereotypes of "man-ness" and "woman-ness".

No, it runs much deeper than that. Gender roles are cross-cultural, and fundamentally rooted in the fact that females can get pregnant and males can't. That's why the stereotypes exist, because they are rooted in biological facts. But those facts aren't absolute. Most people who have male genitalia also have certain behavioral predispositions which we associate with "being a man." But not all people with male genitalia have those behavioral predispositions, and for those who don't there is no reason not to treat them according to how they feel rather than what happens to be between their legs. (For starters, if you want to cast your lot with "biological facts" and treat people according to what happens to be between their legs, then you have to deal with the fact that there are natural hermaphrodites.)

> If I decide to wear a fancy hat and call myself King of the World, should I expect everyone to call me that?

Sure, why not?

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

> people can be wrong about themselves

They can't be wrong about their own subjective experiences. An individual is the ultimate authority on that by definition.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#99
post #81

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.

Actually - the need for 'clean' stories is just a further reproduction of the oppression, packaged for the consumption of people who think they are mainstream. What we need is many more messy stories.

Using the word clean was wrong but I can't edit the comment. What I mean is there need to be stories that show how trans people fit into society like everyone else. They could be our brothers, sisters, parents, friends, coworkers. Just like anyone else. However, someone with a story like Chelsea can easily derail the conversation into a story that doesn't promote trans equality.

Re: Visiting Chelsea Manning in prison

#100
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That subjective experience is merely an identity based on cultural stereotypes of "man-ness" and "woman-ness". > It is simple human decency to defer to how someone chooses to self-identify If I decide to wear a fancy hat and call myself King of the World, should I expect everyone to call me that? No, because I'm not the King of the World. It turns out people can be wrong about themselves, and we shouldn't pretend the…

> The subjective experience is merely an identity based on cultural stereotypes of "man-ness" and "woman-ness". No, it runs much deeper than that. Gender roles are cross-cultural, and fundamentally rooted in the fact that females can get pregnant and males can't. That's why the stereotypes exist, because they are rooted in biological facts. But those facts aren't absolute . Most people who have male genitalia also ha…

People absolutely can be wrong about their own subjective experiences: that's a big component to why religion exists. It's also why we have the concept of mental health.

When people say they have spoken to god, reasonable people think they might be deluded or have some sort of mental health problem.

I understand the desire to not hurt people feelings, but we do people a disservice by agreeing with their self-deception.

Post reply on HN