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

Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#11

Post by slededit »

jsjohnst wrote: post #8
slededit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get that from the letter posted? The letter claims she admitted she was incarcerated. That said its no surprise Canada and the USA share their criminal record databases. At least on the Canadian side its been a point of controversy around granted pardons which the US does not recognize.

> unrelated to Chelsea directly I think you skipped over the above or maybe I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply the letter said that, I have first hand knowledge to my statement.

Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level.

On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#13

Post by dragonwriter »

alexasmyths wrote: post #10
anoctopus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's standard (journalistic) practice to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns even when referencing events before their transition.

"It's standard (journalistic) practice" I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event , it would seem rather more accurate, no? Also, as long as people are being reasonable I don't think we remotely need that level of language policing.

> I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event

What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)?

Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#14

Post by ramblerman »

dragonwriter wrote: post #13
alexasmyths wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's standard (journalistic) practice" I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event , it would seem rather more accurate, no? Also, as long as people are being reasonable I don't think we remotely need that level of language policing.

> I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)? Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?

> What actual gender

The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#15

Post by alexasmyths »

dragonwriter wrote: post #13
alexasmyths wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's standard (journalistic) practice" I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event , it would seem rather more accurate, no? Also, as long as people are being reasonable I don't think we remotely need that level of language policing.

> I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)? Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?

'Gender' is how people identify.

'Sex' is their biology.

I usually do 'gender' - which is an identity thing, I mean, that's the polite thing to do.

But Manning was a 'he' when the disclosures happened, so when talking about that, I usually use 'he'. It seems fair to me.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#16

Post by EliRivers »

ramblerman wrote: post #14
dragonwriter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)? Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?

> What actual gender The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.

There is a multi-dimensional spectrum of biological characteristics commonly used to define "gender", true enough. If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#17

Post by karo_ops »

alexasmyths wrote: post #15
dragonwriter wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)? Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?

'Gender' is how people identify. 'Sex' is their biology. I usually do 'gender' - which is an identity thing, I mean, that's the polite thing to do. But Manning was a 'he' when the disclosures happened, so when talking about that, I usually use 'he'. It seems fair to me.

Uhh, people who transition don't really enjoy being referred to as their previous gender they struggled with. So that's an empathy/common decency thing not to do that.

But this is HN and we like not to consider empathy here (no offence, I exhibit this exact thought pattern too), we need a "logical" explanation. So what about: a person with a third arm does not have that defect anymore after it is surgically removed. You won't refer to someone like that as a person with 3 arms, for a couple of reasons.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#18

Post by ebfe »

EliRivers wrote: post #16
ramblerman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What actual gender The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.

There is a multi-dimensional spectrum of biological characteristics commonly used to define "gender", true enough. If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality.

XY and a penis = male, XX and a vagina = female, anything else = intersex.

Where does this disagree with physical, biological reality?

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#19

Post by ManlyBread »

anoctopus wrote: post #9
alexasmyths wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yea - her. I usually only refer to the situation of his disclosure, in which case 'him'. I've never commented before on her, post gender change.

It's standard (journalistic) practice to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns even when referencing events before their transition.

Could you please provide a source for this standard?

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#20

Post by ramblerman »

EliRivers wrote: post #16
ramblerman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What actual gender The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.

There is a multi-dimensional spectrum of biological characteristics commonly used to define "gender", true enough. If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality.

> If 'actual' gender means a binary choice, that's a social construct that disagrees with physical, biological reality.

There is a binary category in which you fall into that defines if you can procreate with the other or not.

Post reply on HN