141–150 of 199 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even clear Manning is a whistleblower—what the hell did he blow a whistle on? It's not like any widespread scandal, corruption, or conspiracy was revealed.
I believe this was where it started http://www.collateralmurder.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone has already forgotten Pfc. Manning rotting away for 35 years. Please represent the facts accurately. Manning is eligible for release in 7-8 years. I'm willing to make a long bet ( http://longbets.org ) for $300.00 that Manning does not serve 35 years, or "rot away for 35 years" as you put it. Are you up for it?
I hate that this nitpicking has become the standard response whenever someone is facing a prison sentence. It utterly belittles the hardship that people like Pfc. Manning actually face, even if it is for 7-8 years in the end. Additionally, the parole or probation that she faces even after release are still punishment. It's not as though the troubles are suddenly over. Treating the issue in this way makes it sound lik…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems reasonable to me that this person, having XY chromosomes and all the hardware that go with them, may be correctly referred to using masculine pronouns. Gender != your chromosomes and gender != your "hardware" or any other body part for that matter. Gender is about social identity and structure. > There's something to be said for respecting the wishes of the individual in how they'd like to be addressed. Bu…
While I really do tend to lean in the direction you suggest, I don't think it's quite a cut-and-dry as you claim. Here are a few things to consider. First, we're only talking about language. We get those gendered pronouns not because of a need to distinguish between how a person views his gender (or how the world views it), but because of stupid linguistic convention going back to English's Indo-European roots. You'l…
Sexual identity != gender identity. Gendered pronouns do have a long and interesting history in languages that have them, but that is besides the point. We are talking about an individual who has clearly expressed their gender in a public and visible way, to disregard that to use other pronouns is disrespectful.
> Coming from this history, we shouldn't be too concerned with the way pronouns correspond to individual humans.
Actually we very well should be concerned with pronouns and gender. Individual people have their to define their own identity, including their gender, and to be referred to with the pronouns they identify with. That gendered pronouns have their own history is besides the point, that history is not immutable nor is it the same for different languages and cultures. Indeed, there have been cultures and languages with built in support for many different kinds of gender and gender expression throughout history.
> Second, I don't think it's hard to imagine socially-undesirable consequences of honoring anyone's own claimed gender. I'm thinking of a biological-male claiming to self-identify as female, so that he can use the women's locker room at the gym.
This is a tired argument. Gender identity is a big deal for trans* people, it isn't something that someone just up and decides to do so they can perv out in a locker room.
> So under what circumstances do we want to honor their self-image (or, for that matter, to believe their claimed self-image)?
As a society we generally honor people's personal decisions about their identity. We do so for religious change, name change, adoption, interracial marriage and dating, and so on. Gender is no different, people should be free to express their gender as they see fit.
> Third, with identity politics still having legal bearing in our system, it seems that self-identification of gender may derail efforts to ensure gender equality. Given that there are legal structures in place to protect females, may I (as a biological male) claim to self-identify as female, and achieve those same protections? May I at least self-identify on official forms (thereby making enforcement of workplace protections unenforceable)?
It is really clear you have no background knowledge on the kinds of difficulties trans* people face. Trans* people face discrimination, violence, and employment difficult at high rates. You are trying to make it sound like trans* women aren't women, when they in fact are. Official gender identity on forms is a long standing problem for the trans* community at large. There are many places where you cannot change your officially recognized gender at an institution without jumping through a variety of hoops. There are many places where even attempting to do so will get you verbally abused by a clerk. In many places even existing as visibly trans* invites violence.
> Not that these things are insoluble, but I think that we need to give thought to the repercussions should we choose to take any person's claims of gender at face value.
Gender identity has been written about for decades and there is a huge amount written on the social and legal structure of our society as it relates to gender and gender expression. That you aren't familiar with it is not an excuse to make a bunch off the cuff remarks that, whether you realize it or not, are transphobic. So please, don't try to justify your disrespect of someone who clearly identifies as a woman as Manning does.
While I'm fond of any form of flipping the NSA-backing US administration the bird, the Nobel Peace prize has not enough reputation to matter in this context. Al Gore got it for raising awareness of climate change. Obama got that for not being Bush. Even if Snowden gets it, it doesn't really matter.
In all honesty, Obama got it for being the first black president - it was a HUGE deal, remember that.
The problem is, despite appearances, the new boss is the same as the old boss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a time and a place to be pedantic, and this really isn't it. Transgendered people go through a heap of terrible, terrible crap and the least we can all do is give them the dignity of using their identified pronoun. If anybody has earned that respect, it's ms. Manning. I mean really, how the heck does it hurt anybody to say "She" instead of "He" after you've been informed that's not how she identifies? Does it…
My personal value system (and perhaps milord grandparent's) rates the accurate use of words (aka, truth-telling) rather high on the scale of values. Clear thought is impossible without it. When we, as a society, take words such as "war" and "gender" that previously referred to physical realities and make them highly metaphorical or even completely arbitrary, we dilute our vocabulary. We make it harder to think and co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal value system (and perhaps milord grandparent's) rates the accurate use of words (aka, truth-telling) rather high on the scale of values. Clear thought is impossible without it. When we, as a society, take words such as "war" and "gender" that previously referred to physical realities and make them highly metaphorical or even completely arbitrary, we dilute our vocabulary. We make it harder to think and co…
The word "sex" refers to physical realities; "gender" refers to social constructions. By conflating the two words, you are the one diluting our vocabulary. Now, it wouldn't be totally unreasonable for you to assert that pronouns should be tied to sex, not gender; but that's not what you're saying here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this was where it started http://www.collateralmurder.com
Yeah, I was under the impression that he leaked information on the slaughter of civilians in the Middle East by soldiers/mercenaries. My familiarity is clearly cursory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My personal value system (and perhaps milord grandparent's) rates the accurate use of words (aka, truth-telling) rather high on the scale of values. Clear thought is impossible without it. When we, as a society, take words such as "war" and "gender" that previously referred to physical realities and make them highly metaphorical or even completely arbitrary, we dilute our vocabulary. We make it harder to think and co…
The word "sex" refers to physical realities; "gender" refers to social constructions. By conflating the two words, you are the one diluting our vocabulary. Now, it wouldn't be totally unreasonable for you to assert that pronouns should be tied to sex, not gender; but that's not what you're saying here.
I'm well aware of the current usage of "gender" in educated circles. That's why I chose it as an example.
"Gender" previously was essentially a synonym for "sex" (except in the field of linguistics). But now that it has been repurposed in some circles, half the American population thinks it refers to a state of mind and the other half thinks it refers to biology. The result: confusion and miscommunication.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a word to refer to what is now called someone's "gender identity". I'm saying the repurposing of an existing word which meant something similar, but distinct, has caused confusion. (I do expect the current sex/gender distinction to continue to be the accepted usage, though).
The same confusion is now happening with pronouns. And, yes, I would prefer if something as fundamental to the language as a pronoun referred to a physical reality rather than a mutable state of mind. That is a debate worth having, but all too often it isn't framed as a debate, it's framed as "you're insensitive and politically incorrect if you don't agree to our new terminology".
While I'm fond of any form of flipping the NSA-backing US administration the bird, the Nobel Peace prize has not enough reputation to matter in this context. Al Gore got it for raising awareness of climate change. Obama got that for not being Bush. Even if Snowden gets it, it doesn't really matter.
In all honesty, Obama got it for being the first black president - it was a HUGE deal, remember that.
At least if they had given it to him for being black, they wouldn't be lying through their teeth