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

Chelsea Manning released from prison

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 307 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#61

Post by dantillberg »

loeg wrote: post #8
logicallee wrote: post #5

[withdrawn]

It's totally relevant. Trans people experience attacks at a much higher rate than the background population.

To add to this and respond to sibling commenters (though the GP has withdrawn their comment):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.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#62

Post by StevePerkins »

myaccountzz wrote: post #48
gpm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Debating whether they are male or female seems rather pointless to me, it's a question of definitions. If they want to be referred to as a she, I don't see that it costs us anything to comply with their desire though... so I do.

So if I told you to address me as a King, you'd do that too?

> If I told you to call me a King, would you do that?

These other replies miss the mark. It's not that, "calling a commoner a king is inaccurate, whereas a biological male could accurately be called female". Because that just brings you full circle back to arguing over whether biological gender and gender "identity" can be separated.

The more practical answer is that it doesn't hurt anything, and being a dick about it just makes you a dick. If you told me to address you as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, then I might privately harbor some doubts about your mental health. But I'd likely do it just to make you go away, m'lord.

I would not, however, feel bound by any commands to defend The Wall or anything.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#63

Post by interfixus »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #37
interfixus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then could the downvoters please explain to me how this male is supposed to be female?

Simple: A person's gender is a part of their personal identity. Chelsea Manning says that their gender is female, even if their biological sex is male. As a consequence of respect for their personal identity as a member of society (and NOT fixating on their sex organs, which is frankly creepy), most people will refer to a trans* person as the gender they identify as, not the sex they were born with. Or, if uncertain…

What's creepy here is the raging fashion of postmodernish, unanchored, up-for-grabs neo-reality. It really is about as Newspeak as it can get.

There's no effing subjectivity about male and female. I checked with my cats. They agree.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#64

Post by r3bl »

raverbashing wrote: post #35

Now the question is: will Assange follow up with his promise?

For those wondering, WikiLeaks claimed[0] that they'll agree to Assange being extradited to the US if Obama grants clemency to Manning, but later on Assange's lawyers said[1] that this was only applicable if Manning gets released immediately, and that the deal Obama gave was still not enough for Assange to agree to be extradited.

[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713

[1] http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/314783-assange-lawye...

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#66

Post by interfixus »

hashtagMERKY wrote: post #55
myaccountzz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I told you to address me as a King, you'd do that too?

That's a bit of a false equivalence, really. There's no good reason why someone should call you King, but Chelsea Manning's gender identity is female, so it makes sense to refer to her as female.

Bradly - or Chelsea - Manning's gender identity is male, male, male.

Or did they rebuild him?

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#67

Post by keehun »

myaccountzz wrote: post #30
jfabre wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though it's not proved, Seth Rich comes to mind. (edit removed the yet in "proved yet")

I mean it's pretty obvious that it was a political murder at this point. Of course liberal HN will down-vote you even if there was video evidence.

It's really NOT obvious. Check the trail of Fox News' "evidence" falling apart at the seams: http://digg.com/2017/who-is-seth-rich-dnc-murder-wikileaks

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#68

Post by tree_of_item »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #37
interfixus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then could the downvoters please explain to me how this male is supposed to be female?

Simple: A person's gender is a part of their personal identity. Chelsea Manning says that their gender is female, even if their biological sex is male. As a consequence of respect for their personal identity as a member of society (and NOT fixating on their sex organs, which is frankly creepy), most people will refer to a trans* person as the gender they identify as, not the sex they were born with. Or, if uncertain…

It is not "creepy" to understand that biological sex is a real, observable thing with causal effects on our surroundings, and "gender identity" isn't.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#69

Post by dTal »

beaconstudios wrote: post #13
loeg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's totally relevant. Trans people experience attacks at a much higher rate than the background population.

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.

Post reply on HN