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

Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

ccc.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#41

Post by king_jester »

kbenson wrote: post #21
king_jester wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community? That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). Chelsea Manning has clearly stated that she is a woman and should be referred to as a woman. > I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but…

You are projecting. Please re-read my original post, and followup. To assume I'm biased without at least asking some questions first to clarify my intent is disingenuous, unfair, and unappreciated. > That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). I don't believe this is true. If a community solves a problem of h…

A lot to respond to, so I'll just make it brief. How to handle someone who has transition is well covered on the internet. Also very common on the internet is bad faith arguments that fret over whether they should or should not accept certain aspects of someone's transition. Simply put, just accept that transition and use basic phrases if you must refer to something about that person's past presentation. However, don't always bring it up or bring it up without need as you are basically performing a subtle misgendering of the person by always throwing that past presentation in the face of their current presentation, which is something that happens a lot for trans folks.

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#42

Post by Mandatum »

ameister14 wrote: post #10

I don't really understand supporting Chelsea Manning, or equating her plight with Snowden's. Snowden had a purpose and a plan, and executed it while attempting to keep people from getting hurt. Chelsea Manning lashed out at an army that didn't support her and put her in the wrong position. The military may have mistreated her, but they're still not the same thing.

Oh god, I assumed Chelsea was a separate leaker from Bradley Manning, and instantly thought "Well, she was probably acting rash" - whereas my opinion of "Bradley Manning" differed.

I'm sexist. :\

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#43

Post by kbenson »

king_jester wrote: post #41
kbenson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are projecting. Please re-read my original post, and followup. To assume I'm biased without at least asking some questions first to clarify my intent is disingenuous, unfair, and unappreciated. > That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). I don't believe this is true. If a community solves a problem of h…

A lot to respond to, so I'll just make it brief. How to handle someone who has transition is well covered on the internet. Also very common on the internet is bad faith arguments that fret over whether they should or should not accept certain aspects of someone's transition. Simply put, just accept that transition and use basic phrases if you must refer to something about that person's past presentation. However, don…

I'm not trying to reject anyone's transition, I'm trying to figure out when, where and why it was decided that the past description in this case gets rewritten for the current context instead of continuing to to exist in an accurate form.

For example, we don't refer to a block of marble as a statue until it has become one. When referring to its past, we don't generally refer to it as a statue until it has become one. I was a boy before I was a man, when referring to that period of my life, expect anyone to refer to me as a boy (or child), and not my current state.

To be absolutely clear, I have no problem referring to someone as they desire in the present or future, but I've yet to see a good reason (beyond "it's disrespectful!", with little or no explanation) why a change in name or gender requires a rewriting of history. I would be happy to have an argument put forth I could get behind, it would hopefully make this less confusing in the future, and cause less friction if I misstep.

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#44

Post by kbenson »

Torgo wrote: post #32
kbenson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community? I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that conf…

You are confused because you are seeing gender how it is currently used, which is a social construct that is assigned to people largely beyond their control that affects how others see and interact with them; and what some people want gender to be: solely an expression of one's personal gender identification, that to be respectful everyone else must acknowledge.

I'm actually not even going into how people want to identify, which I see as largely their own choice. I'm more interested in why we are supposed to change the past tense pronoun and name. Really, my question is the same when the pronoun argument is excised from it. Consider Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. Do we say Cassius Clay won the world heavyweight title in 1964, or do we say Muhammad Ali did, knowing he changes his name afterward. There are cases where it is more confusing both ways, but from a historical record perspective, it feels more correct to me to say Cassius Clay did, simply because that also denotes who he identified as at that point in time.

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#45

Post by kbenson »

king_jester wrote: post #40
kbenson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely edit this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly misgendering this person I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the…

> I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought made the most sense, with explanation.…

> The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about "historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.

I can't help but feel you keep misconstruing my argument to be that people should not be able to change their name or gender, or that we should ignore their name and gender preference, which I've very explicitly made clear is not my case. I do, and will continue to "just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use" for the present and future tense. It's only the past tense I have questions about, and am seeking a valid argument for.

I'm unclear why there is a special case where people who decide to change their name (or gender, but that's irrelevant to my argument) have special rules about how their past is represented that nothing else follows, as far as I'm aware.

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#46

Post by kbenson »

lilsunnybee wrote: post #36
kbenson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one possible schema, which assumes the name is the primary key. Now that we've established that the name can change, I think it makes a bad choice for a primary key. Instead, I would think you look up a name, and get a link to the primary record, allowing multiple names in use (whether active currently or not). I personally think any schema that requires going back and changing primary keys on a record (and th…

IMO Wikipedia-esque redirects seem to be a perfectly valid, respectful, non-confusing way of handling cases such as this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_manning

Wikipedia uses something similar to what I described under the covers. There's a unique id assigned to a page, but it's ALSO accessible by a title. Internally, the page id is used to refer the page from other items, not the title[1]. This is sort of equivalent to having one or more names associated with your SSN, if you are in the US. Which makes sense, because names are not unique.

1: http://goo.gl/T7DfoC

Edit: HN garbled the wikimedia URL, so I used a shortener.

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#47

Post by AnthonyMouse »

king_jester wrote: post #39
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Gender association' implies that there is some true gender rather than what Chelsea Manning has stated and that is very transphobic whether you realize it or not. I haven't downvoted you but let me explain why others have. You're making politically controversial statements and essentially accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot. This place is full of engineers. There are only two ways you can say t…

> I haven't downvoted you but let me explain why others have. You're making politically controversial statements and essentially accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot. I am not accusing anyone of being a bigot. However, it would be silly to assume that there are not cultural and social biases about gender that you and I grow up with and have, even if we don't realize it. That is what I am getting at…

> I am not accusing anyone of being a bigot. However, it would be silly to assume that there are not cultural and social biases about gender that you and I grow up with and have, even if we don't realize it. That is what I am getting at: this isn't some accusation, but that statement definitely has a connotation about what it means to be a particular gender.

The words you're using could be applied to anything. We're culturally biased to believe that murder, rape and slavery are wrong, that free speech and self-determination are virtuous, etc. So your point has to be that the bias is not only present but incorrect. The problem is that's the political question which is in dispute. People aren't inherently wrong just because they disagree with you.

> Gender is not your genes and there is a difference between sex and gender.

This is what I'm talking about. "Gender" and "genes" have the same root. Several of the definitions of "gender" in the dictionary list it as a synonym for sex. You're trying to claim that sex and gender mean (materially) different things because that allows you to more easily distinguish one from the other. So you're essentially using gender as a term of art. Which is fine until you start trying to tell everyone else that your meaning is the only meaning.

> You are implying that trans people being able to define their identity and having their identity accepted is a niche thing that isn't relevant to society as a whole when it most certainly is. Being able to have an identity and exist without facing violence and hardship is important no matter how numerically small a population is.

The problem is the cultural bias goes both ways. Most of society will assume that someone referred to with the feminine pronoun is genetically female. When that assumption is false the use of that pronoun becomes inherently misleading. So you're implicitly claiming that someone should have the right to mislead others about their sex in order to self-identify as the opposite gender. Can you at least understand how not everyone would agree with that conclusion?

And there is a mile wide gap between disagreeing over which words to use to describe someone and committing violence against them.

> I think you missed the point of what Newspeak is. Correcting false assumptions and stereotypes about gender is not about limiting discussion or dialog. Further, there is no way that trans communities are even close to being in a position of political power and influence, being able to have their identity without that identity being challenged just because they exist isn't an attempt to suppress people.

A majority or position of power is not necessary to enforce conformity to an ideal. All it requires is dedication and repetition. More to the point, if you don't think it can be effective then why are you doing it?

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#48

Post by sesqu »

kbenson wrote: post #43
king_jester wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot to respond to, so I'll just make it brief. How to handle someone who has transition is well covered on the internet. Also very common on the internet is bad faith arguments that fret over whether they should or should not accept certain aspects of someone's transition. Simply put, just accept that transition and use basic phrases if you must refer to something about that person's past presentation. However, don…

I'm not trying to reject anyone's transition, I'm trying to figure out when, where and why it was decided that the past description in this case gets rewritten for the current context instead of continuing to to exist in an accurate form. For example, we don't refer to a block of marble as a statue until it has become one. When referring to its past, we don't generally refer to it as a statue until it has become one.…

While a single entity can have multiple identifiers, one is usually canonical in a communication environment. For example, we say "Istanbul was founded in the 7th century BC" when speaking of the present-day city, But we say "Byzantium was founded" when we wish to limit the discussion to the pre-Constantine era. If we wish to span multiple eras, Istanbul is the only choice, as that is the canonical identifier.

As such, I believe you should refer to Manning as Chelsea if she is the subject, but may refer to her as Bradley if the leak is the subject. It would be helpful to qualify her name as "Chelsea Manning, who was at the time known as Bradley", "Bradley Manning, who later changed her name to Chelsea", or some similar construction for audiences who are not well aware of her, to help them connect historical knowledge to your topic.

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#49

Post by sesqu »

king_jester wrote: post #40
kbenson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely edit this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly misgendering this person I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the…

> I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought made the most sense, with explanation.…

> It's not about the past state. It's that their present state is always reduced back to that previous state.

It's a fucking name. If a person can't live with the fact that they used to be called something else, they need serious help with their self-image. It's not on other people to let you pretend you were never in jail, it's not on them to let you pretend you weren't raised in Cornwall, and it's not on them to let you pretend you were always married to the same person. It's on them not to bring it up when it's not pertinent, which it sometimes is, particularly in medical, judicial, sexual and demographic contexts.

Re: Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden

#50

Post by kbenson »

sesqu wrote: post #48
kbenson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to reject anyone's transition, I'm trying to figure out when, where and why it was decided that the past description in this case gets rewritten for the current context instead of continuing to to exist in an accurate form. For example, we don't refer to a block of marble as a statue until it has become one. When referring to its past, we don't generally refer to it as a statue until it has become one.…

While a single entity can have multiple identifiers, one is usually canonical in a communication environment. For example, we say "Istanbul was founded in the 7th century BC" when speaking of the present-day city, But we say "Byzantium was founded" when we wish to limit the discussion to the pre-Constantine era. If we wish to span multiple eras, Istanbul is the only choice, as that is the canonical identifier. As suc…

This is perfectly sensible, and exactly what I was looking for. It chooses the most relevant and least confusing identifier for the context it was used in. The question then becomes, "Is this acceptable to the transgender community?" and "Is this in common use?"
Post reply on HN