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

271–280 of 307 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#271

Post by dTal »

eropple wrote: post #213
fizgig wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 currentl…

>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.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#272

Post by eropple »

fizgig wrote: post #217
eropple wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 currentl…

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,…

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.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#273

Post by eropple »

self-diversity wrote: post #243
aoeusnth1 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why that is... Maybe the social isolation and pervasive hatred and mocking attitude of society has something to do with it?

It's very important to insist on the correct narrative at every juncture, otherwise people might look into the possibility that those who evince symptoms of mental illness (such as body dysphoria) may actually not be "cured" in any sense by getting drastic surgery.

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:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262734734_An_Analys...

(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.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#274

Post by ouid »

belltaco wrote: post #143
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, many of the people that need convincing with regards to net neutrality and online rights also view her as a traitor with mental problems and thus "normal, patriotic Americans" should not worry about these things, except to prevent "liberals" from creating more "regulations" for companies and putting up barriers to keep our law enforcement from finding the "terrorists'" plans.

I don't know why other posters are disputing your assertions. Lets cut through all the noise and look at the President's uncut opinion on net neutrality. >Donald J. Trump‏ Verified account >@realDonaldTrump >Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... So there, tha…

There's a cynical beauty in successfully making your entire position: "Don't trust anyone who contradicts me".

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#275

Post by orblivion »

Raphmedia wrote: post #255
orblivion wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they might lead me to believe something I wouldn't believe if I knew more. It's not just about what I can see. (I see your point about the word "perception", probably a bad choice of words) But sure, maybe I'd even internalize it and accept it if I knew it but they appeared very convincing, at least for everyday interaction purposes. I probably am more resistant to that than I otherwise would be given the social…

> I'd even internalize it and accept it if I knew it but they appeared very convincing, at least for everyday interaction purposes I don't understand that part. I think there are some concepts that are confusing you. All of the transgender individuals that I have known from before their transition pass as their new gender without any issues. The only way anybody would know if you told them. Story time: You know how m…

Amusing story. It wouldn't particularly bother me if they were that convincing and I ended up calling them by their new pronoun without realizing they were trans.

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#276

Post by anotheral »

fizgig wrote: post #217
eropple wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 currentl…

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,…

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?

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#277

Post by [deleted] »

divideby0829 wrote: post #238
belltaco wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why other posters are disputing your assertions. Lets cut through all the noise and look at the President's uncut opinion on net neutrality. >Donald J. Trump‏ Verified account >@realDonaldTrump >Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... So there, tha…

This is so bass akwards, but of course as a non tech based septuagenarian it's not like I expected him to have an actually informed decision on this important issue. But if anything net neutrality protects the voices of smaller media which, other than fox, many conservative media e.g. breitbart fall into that category. CNN wouldn't like it but they could pay for a network fast lane, Alex Jones or TheBlaze wouldn't ne…

[deleted]

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#278

Post by interfixus »

sctb wrote: post #246
interfixus wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you say so, then by definition that's the way it is. I cannot help but notice, though, that apparently all subthreads critical of Manning and/or commenting on the gender thing have been not only heavily downvoted but marked as 'flagged', while some fairly vitriolic ones in Manning's favor have not. Not trying to be polemical, and not out to kindle further unproductive discussion, but I would be interested to see t…

There's no need for "unofficial political guidelines" here: that comment breaks the official guidelines and doesn't belong on a site whose purpose is to gratify our intellectual curiosity. There are other places on the Internet for the tedious back-and-forth of "you don't get it" "no you don't get it" etc., but that sort of conversational purgatory is not what we're after here.

To some, it certainly is a valid point of intellectual curiosity whether the current trend of naming people and ideas something they're not is a healthy and a proper one.

But you are right about the 'tedious back-and-forth' (which I called 'unproductive discussion'): Further down, you very appropriately link to dang's ruminations on cognitive bias. Just please remember that none of us are guaranteed to escape the dangers of CB. I certainly know that I don't, despite a decent level of awareness on the issue.

My comment has sparked a lot of responses, many of them apparently assuming that I am somehow attacking Manning. I am not. I most clearly am not. I didn't say a word about Manning or the case. I stated (in perhaps unnecessarily pointed words, I'll grant you that) my sincere opinion on the objective validity of subjective gender change. If that point and its attendant controversiality is not worthy of intellectual curiosity, I see dark times ahead indeed (and for the record: I do).

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#279

Post by interfixus »

contras1970 wrote: post #257
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but notice that warnings are only ever given to one side of certain issues, though.

The "issue" here being which gendered pronouns to use in reference to Chelsea Manning. The "side" that's getting warned is the one that uses her transsexuality to launch petty hostilities at her.

I started this subthread. Would you mind pointing me to where I 'launch petty hostilities' at anyone?

Re: Chelsea Manning released from prison

#280

Post by expenses »

dTal wrote: post #271
eropple wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 currentl…

>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 "commu…

> 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.

Post reply on HN