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

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#21

Post by qbrass »

ramblerman wrote: post #20
EliRivers wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your gender if you can't procreate with someone of either sex?

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#22

Post by somenewacc »

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.

Gender expression is how people show their gender to others.

Gender identity is how people identify.

(gender disphoria is a mismatch between gender expression and gender identity)

It's possible that at the time of disclosures, Manning would already identify herself as woman, even if her gender expression was entirely masculine. Using the feminine gender is a matter of respect.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#23

Post by scotty79 »

slededit wrote: post #2

You can be barred entry for a DUI so I don't know what she was expecting. She could seek a waver which may or may not be granted.

DUI is objective human transgression against safety. Treason is more relative and arbitrary. One country's traitor can be another's hero.

Treason is more like blasphemy or copyright infringement.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#24

Post by frankling_ »

qbrass wrote: post #21
ramblerman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What's your gender if you can't procreate with someone of either sex?

"any of the sexes", if you don't mind.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#25

Post by feborges »

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.

she was probably never a "he".

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#27

Post by zmoreira »

qbrass wrote: post #21
ramblerman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What's your gender if you can't procreate with someone of either sex?

Would your body produce eggs if it was working flawlessly? Then you are a female; if not, male.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#29

Post by saint_fiasco »

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.

The purpose of pronouns is to serve as a shorthand for the actual name (the "noun" in "pronoun"). Instead of saying "Chelsey Manning said this, then Chelsey Manning did that" you just say "She said this, then she did that".

If the etiquette rules for pronouns are confusing, just use the same rule you would use for any other name. For example, you would say "Pope Francis used to work as a nightclub bouncer" even though he was called Jorge Bergoglio at the time.

Re: Chelsea Manning barred from entering Canada

#30

Post by alexasmyths »

somenewacc wrote: post #22
alexasmyths wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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.

Gender expression is how people show their gender to others. Gender identity is how people identify. (gender disphoria is a mismatch between gender expression and gender identity) It's possible that at the time of disclosures, Manning would already identify herself as woman, even if her gender expression was entirely masculine. Using the feminine gender is a matter of respect.

If he identified as 'he' then, then he get's a 'he' when I'm discussing facts about the story when they did that action, objectively.

We don't alter history because of how someone possibly may have felt at the time. We don't know how 'he or she' may have internally identified back then.

Esp. because we're talking actual, objective facts, and not 'to them' or whatever, I think it's reasonably to use the gender that they used to identify to the world at that point.

I also think it's a little absurd the level of linguistic policing we have to get in. I think that we're only scratching the surface of how far you could take it.

Point - your language is fairly 'gender binary normative' - and a bunch of people are now even offended by that. There's so many ways to 'identify'.

The Uni of Oxford student union is now recommending that you haver use 'gendered pronouns' i.e. 'he/she' until the person you are talking about has specifically expressed to you their gender preference.

Meaning - that person with a big beard, beer belly, deep voice name 'Joe' - you can't say 'he' - until he has specifically told you 'he prefers' 'he'. Or you're 'not being respectful'.

It's getting absurd.

Manning seems to identify as a 'she', I'll have no problem referring to her as 'she' if I see her or talk about her presently - but I'm really not interested in being policed or moralized beyond that.

Post reply on HN