I don't care if you call him/her Bradley or Chelsea.

[jazzimov]

I don't care if you refer to this person as "him" or "her".

The charges are not gender specific. Manning performed the same acts whether you or Manning sees Manning as male or female.

Manning was convicted in court. Period. Whether it was a fair ruling or not still does not depend on gender.

That being said, I think that gender-identity may have had a bearing on Manning's decisions. Please allow me to clarify - not Manning's gender identity, but societies REACTION to his gender identity. He may well have been a woman born with a man's body. No one can know that except Manning. BUT the reaction from everyone else was trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. At least, that is my opinion. But my opinion doesn't really count.

The facts are that Manning released documents that Manning had sworn an oath not to release. If we want that oath to mean something in the future, there must be consequences for breaking it.

What did Manning release? The most controversial was a video of innocent civilians and reporters being mistaken for combatants and being killed. In theory, the real crime here was the cover-up to try and sweep this incident under the rug. But the real lesson here is WAR IS HELL. In war, innocents get killed. That is a fact of life. We can try to sterilize it as much as we like in Hollywood and in press reports, but the fact is that WAR IS HELL.

Which is why we should be very, very careful before we go to war. OR before we allow Congress to allow Military Actions, which is the New War Footing. When Congress allows military action, that means that innocents are going to get killed.

PERIOD.

EDIT TO ADD: This is why WAR or MILITARY ACTION should be so rare. Sometimes it is necessary. SOMETIMES.

[Warpy]

1. I want that ridiculously long sentence reduced to something more rational

That's my focus. Manning's sexuality is not my business.

[jazzimov]

2. I can respect that!

As long as we recognize that Manning did something wrong. Manning may have done a lot of things right, but ultimately Manning did wrong. Manning's sentencing may have been appropriate, it may have been overly harsh. That, we can discuss.

Gender has NOTHING to do with it.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Manning's gender identity being female is not a matter of her sexuality.

And of course what your friend is saying is that if you do not approve of the actions of a minority person, it is alright to use disrespectful verbiage and intentional slurs against that person. A really poisonous concept.

[Warpy]

20. No, YOU said that

We're done here.

[LittleBlue]

32. It doesn't need to be your business

That's your choice. The choice about whether to respect trans people is separate.

They've asked you to refer to them in accordance with their choice. Can we just treat them decently and refer to Manning as "she" and "Chelsea"? It isn't much to ask.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. It's her, period.

"him/her" is just as offensive as "he/she" and I do care!

[leftstreet]

4. Leave Manning be n/t

[noamnety]

5. I don't see it all as separate issues.

Politicians love war because it makes profits and gets them reelected.

But they sell war to the masses - to the people who will be fighting it and voting for more of it - by dehumanizing people in all sorts of ways, by othering them.

I don't think we can be willfully indifferent to the needs of minority or oppressed groups without in our own small way contributing to the marketing and normalization of warfare.

Disrespectful speech (deliberate use of wrong pronouns to invalidate someone's identity), racial slurs to invalidate someone's humanity, supporting laws to arrest people for supporting gay rights or interracial marriage, supporting profiling of middle eastern or black people or immigrants, it's all part of a package. Inside the package is the manual for how to dehumanize people so we can kill them without guilt and chalk it up to collateral damage.

[pscot]

6. Shooting unarmed civilian rescuers is a war crime

Defined as such by the Geneva accords. That wasn't collateral damage in the heat of combat. It was an act of murder, done in cold blood..

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. Yep.

And writing it off as "war is hell" is why politicians get away with bullshit illegal wars. As far as I'm concerned anyone who praises the government for going after Manning is also supportive of the Bush administration and their war crimes. Those of us who took to the streets after the invasion of Iraq knew better. Manning is a hero.


When the chickens come home to roost they wont be so quick to write off war crimes. But hey, it happened to brown people on the other side of the world, all that matters are oaths and duty. Human life isn't so valuable when they look different and worship a different God. This country is sick.

[The Link]

9. Becoming Klinger from MASH? Unbelievable.

Fucking Christ.

[PsychoBunny]

15. I have seen in my short time here

that one must not violate the group norms in any way. In this case, the GPEP (Gender Pronoun Enforcement Police) will be after you.

It's funny, that in a place that is supposed to represent inclusiveness, tolerance, diversity, and open discussion, there are quite a few areas where expressing an opinion opposing the "group norm" will invoke an almost Taliban-like response. The last couple of days has been an example. I have also seen anything to do with discussions of feminism, rape culture, guns, and GLBT issues will quickly turn very closed.

I note this particularly as I just watched a half hour video lecture about "tight" vs "loose" cultures. We progressives are supposed to be pretty loose, but certain subjects will turn us very "tight."

[gollygee]

16. Tolerance does not include tolerating intolerance.

Just like love does not include loving hate.

[PsychoBunny]

19. I Will Not Tolerate Intolerance!

Sounds cool, but irrational. That's OK. I can deal with it. I'm a loosey.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

22. Yep.

And I take offense to "Gender Pronoun Enforcement Police". If you use bigoted language you're going to get called out, period. Don't like being called out on your ignorance or bigotry? Don't say ignorant/bigoted things.

[NuclearDem]

36. Refusing to do something as simple as use the proper pronoun IS bigotry.

I don't know why you guys can't understand that.

[PsychoBunny]

43. Show me where I said it wasn't.

My point was about loose vs tight cultures and the consequences of appearing to violating group norms. Something I just found interesting. You provided another example to my point.

And don't call me "guy." I find that highly offensive.

[LanternWaste]

52. Which in this case, I believe may be more accurately called simply "incivility"

" consequences of appearing to violating group norms"

Which in this particular case, I believe may be more accurately called simply "incivility", regardless of how one may attempt to rationalize otherwise...

[DrDan]

47. very observant - observe the group-think or else . . . .

[nomorenomore08]

65. Why are you guys whining about simple common courtesy?

I thought we liberals/progressives were supposed to be better than that...

[DrDan]

66. please show me a post where I did that - you can't

my post is in regard to group-think at DU - violate it and be prepared to suffer the consequences.

I have no problem with the request, but I will not "police" the posts someone who prefers to use "he" for whatever reason - there are enough others who have taken on that role.

[The Philosopher]

55. You cannot

go on about how progressives are supposed to be a "pretty loose" culture, and be disrespectful to people. That's what the proper pronouns are about, not about grammar, but respect for an individual who isn't the same as you nor has the same background, because when you respect one person who isn't like you, you respect others who are in the same boat. You use the proper pronouns and proper names for Chelsea Manning because there are many others who are transgender who deserve our respect, and to keep calling her a "him" is a slap in the face to all who are transgender. If you don't respect that Manning has accepted that she's a woman instead of a man, then to others you seem like you won't respect their acceptance, either.

Pushing away intolerance and disrespect is not being "tight" or "controlling" or authoritarian or anything else you want to call it. It's doing the right thing. It's being a Democrat. It's one of the brighter values of the Human race.

[nomorenomore08]

64. Criticism does not equal persecution.

And that goes double, when it comes to those with less power criticizing those with more.

[NuclearDem]

35. You are a piece of work, you know that?

[The Philosopher]

51. This is

transphobic, this is bigotry: to say that Manning being transgender is the same as a soldier using anti-LGBT military policies to get out of the Army (as the character Klinger was doing). Manning isn't trying to get out of the military or jail, she is accepting herself and being out about it and it's disrespectful not only to her to say these things, but also to other transgender people, both who have accepted their real selves, and those who are in anguish waiting for the day they do so.

[The Philosopher]

60. Do you need to know anyone personally

to show respect? You're among other people, a private forum in a public space, among strangers, and you can show civility and respect to everyone here, including those who are transgender. It is obtuse to keep using the reasoning "I don't know X personally." Some might say maliciousness. The more brusque might even call it cowardice. As you're hinging your argument on proof of her being transgender and your lack of personal knowledge of it, that you would choose "he/she" when either case may be is insulting no matter what, as I know most men who identify with that gender dislike being called a woman. If you continue this line of argument, it will be because you choose to be disrespectful and malicious, not unsure.

[The Link]

10. To summarize: Bigotry doesn't bother you.

Got it.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Do you also think it is alright to use disrepectful verbiage about other minority individuals

with whom you have a beef? Of course not. But then again maybe you do.

[PsychoBunny]

21. Do you think it is alright to use disrespectful verbiage about people

of other political persuasions? I have seen some of that here. Do they "deserve" it for their clearly erroneous beliefs? Or should we also be respectful as we make our arguments?

[leftstreet]

23. You think Manning's sexuality is an 'erroneous belief?'

If so, then your question would make sense to you

[PsychoBunny]

27. You think it's a political persuasion?

I don't understand your question. I mentioned beliefs in political issues. It has nothing to do with sexuality, which is personal.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Gender identiy and sexuality are not the same thing.

nt

[PsychoBunny]

44. Excellent. You are correct.

And neither one is a political belief, which was what I was talking about in the post you replied to.

I am beginning to see the problem. I'll leave now.

[pipi_k]

45. I think the other person's point is

that there's an awful lot of hypocrisy with regards to respect vs hateful talk when it comes down to political leanings here.

So I'm sitting here wondering if there would be all this general sanctimonious crap going on if George W Bush said he wanted to live the rest of his life as a woman and be called "Georgia".

I'm thinking...probably not.

After all, he's a Republican. A lying Republican who lied the US into a pointless war.

It seems like respect is usually only given to people who are on the correct side of the political spectrum. Or have done things DUers consider heroic.


Seriously...is there anyone here who supports Bradley Manning's wish to be called Chelsea but who feels that he is a dishonorable skunk for violating a pledge?

[PsychoBunny]

49. Thank you.

...that there's an awful lot of hypocrisy with regards to respect vs hateful talk when it comes down to political leanings here.

You seem to be the only one that got the point of that post.

Seriously...is there anyone here who supports Bradley Manning's wish to be called Chelsea but who feels that he is a dishonorable skunk for violating a pledge?

Me. (And it's she.)

[ForgoTheConsequence]

25. Telling.

Why are you so invested in protecting your right to to use hateful language towards trans people?

[PsychoBunny]

38. Thank you for making my point.

I have no interest or investment in protecting anyone's right to use hateful language to anyone. Even republicans. That was my whole point. I don't think we supposedly more open minded people should use hateful language toward anyone. We should be above that. The only way you could read that into my questions is if you are looking for something that is not there.

I ask questions to inspire discussion of progressive issues. I thought that is what we were supposed to do here. After the last two weeks I am beginning to wonder.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

40. Language can hurt.

It takes nothing to use the correct terminology. If someone goes out of their way to use the incorrect terminology then they are no ally of mine and I don't want to be under the same "tent" let-alone in the same room with them. Got it?

[PsychoBunny]

46. And I think that was a great statement and agree wholeheartedly.

But what does that have to do with anything I posted. I want people to use the correct language. I want people to use respectful language. My point about the GPEP was about enforcement of group norms in a "loose" society.

I give up. I think I see the problem and I will try to refrain from such behavior.

Good evening.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. I sure don't equate a person's Party to a person's essence as you seem to

Are there slurs that are specific to Republicans, for being Republican, about their inborn Republicanness?
You are being reductive in an attempt to evade the actual question. Clearly, Republicans apply just the same as anyone else, you are not permitted to call a black Republican racist names while it is fine to criticize their politics all day long. A person can feel that Manning should rot in jail but that does not give them the right to call her 'him'. Just as taking issue with Colin Powell selling lies in the UN is not reason to launch into racial invective against him.

[PsychoBunny]

48. [sigh] OK

I live and learn.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. I am so glad you are NOT in charge of national policy

and I will leave it at that. In fact, I hope you never, ever have that responsibility.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Well she DOES. So call her Chelsea.

The rest of your post is apropos of nothing at all.

[madinmaryland]

26. I prefer to refer to her as a convicted felon who gave away state secrets to foreign nationals.

Whatever she wants to be called is her own business and none of mine.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Thank you! n/t

[madinmaryland]

34. She was a he when he committed the crimes, though, making it even more confusing. Though I am glad

you agree with me that Manning is a convicted felon who gave away state secrets to a foreign national.

I just hope that Manning is not using this as a ruse to be transferred away from the male population at Leavenworth. Sorry, sometimes the tinfoilhat comes out.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

42. I just hope that Manning is not using this as a ruse to be transferred away from the male population

Really? Shame on you.

[Ms. Toad]

50. Convicted felon is legal reality.

As to the rest - without checking the record - I believe the giving away state secrets to a foreign national portion of the charge was dropped (or she was found innocent), so I don't believe that is legally accurate.

You might find it enlightening to read this. It is long, but it gives a lot of background you may not be aware of.

http://www.philipsandifer.com/2013/08/the-high-tech-lynching-of-breanna.html

The news that the person called Bradley Manning in the bulk of media stories over the past few years is more correctly called "Chelsea" was, to say the least, surprising to those of us who followed the case closely. We had, for the most part, thought she preferred "Breanna." Other than this detail, however, the "sudden" revelation that Manning was a trans woman was neither sudden nor a revelation. In fact, understanding anything about this case without that information is essentially impossible. The sole reason that Chelsea Manning is going to spend the next thirty-five years in prison is that she is transgender. For this reason, she was and is being systematically psychologically tortured by the US Army with the express consent of the civilian government. And the sole reason for any of this is that it’s easier to publicly lynch a trans woman than it is to address the criminal deficiencies of the US Military in the course of the now ostensibly concluded Iraq War.

. . .

The concept of dysphoria is simple. It is the set of emotions and feelings caused by the constant knowledge that your self-identity and your physical body are at odds. Metaphors do not do the concept justice. The closest parallel that might be familiar to the general public is the phenomenon of phantom limb pain, in which the brain of an amputee refuses to recognize that the lost limb is gone and continues to frantically and agonizingly insist upon its presence. Except instead of having one appendage that the brain and physical reality differ violently on the trans person is forced to react with perpetual horror to the fact that their entire body is wrong. One trans blogger, Kinsey Hope, describes it viscerally: “That deep down instinctual feeling of “what the fuck”-ness that you get when you see a shattered knee bending a leg the wrong way or even worse see that bent leg on yourself. It’s not rational. It doesn’t make logical sense. It’s utter instinctual response. That’s bodily dysphoria.”

This is what Chelsea Manning was suffering when she was stationed in Iraq. Indeed, it is likely what she was suffering from 24/7. She was open with her supervisors about this. And yet she received no meaningful assistance. When she was found on the floor curled in the fetal position, she received no assistance. When she flipped over a table and attempted to grab a gun from a gun rack, she received no assistance. The only counseling offered to her was designed merely as triage - to get her back to work. Despite widespread awareness of her mental health issues, at no point prior to her arrest for providing classified information to Wikileaks did anyone do anything that could even remotely be considered “treatment.”

By the military’s own admission, Manning should have been discharged in December of 2009, after the gun rack incident. She should also, under military procedure at least, surely have been discharged when she came out to her roommate, in violation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. DADT was, after all, used to force soldiers such as Dan Choi, an Arabic translator of vital importance, out of the military because they were gay. This was one of the major reasons why it was, quite rightly, eventually abolished with full support from military hierarchy - it was being used to force good soldiers out of the military. And yet at the height of DADT a Private with gender identity disorder and severe mental health issues resulting from it, who had come out to another soldier, was not only left in the military but put in close proximity to classified information. How could this have even happened?

[lumpy]

54. Yes

n

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. No one is denying the felony conviction. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Exactly. I thought blatant flamebait was outside the "community standard". n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. You and me both. I don't understand why it's still here. n/t

[Arcanetrance]

14. It's amazing how much of this shit I'm seeing

So because you dislike the fact that manning released those documents it's ok to be bigoted. This may be a democratic and left leaning site but when it comes to alot of issues that deal with basic rights alot of people become mirrors of freepers and other assorted right wingers

[ForgoTheConsequence]

37. I guess it's the "big tent".

We're suppose to accept it when people use bigoted language, insult the working poor, write off murder victims with "war is hell", put down labor unions, etc.

[Arcanetrance]

56. maybe its time the big tent burned down

[cali]

18. what a useless piece of ......op.

just another excuse for you to bash on Manning for whatever reason.

[LittleBlue]

24. It's pretty simple

Manning identifies as "she". She has changed her name to Chelsea.

What have you lost calling her by the appropriate name and pronoun? Not only does it deny her identity, it angers people on DU. There are few places trans people are accepted and respected. They have hard enough lives as it is with the abuse that they face. Why not just give them something this once and make them feel like their identities are respected and valued?

It costs you nothing, anyway. Just be a decent person and respect them.

[NuclearDem]

33. I really hope you enjoy pizza.

[WillyT]

53. JizzimOff Says WHAT ???

[Electric Monk]

57. I don't care if you prefer pepperoni & mushroom or ham & pineapple.

Again, I'm sure.

[G_j]

58. ever since Vietnam

I have had no stomach to hear someone describe war as a fact of life, and remind me that "war is hell."

the worst cop-out under the sun

[malokvale77]

62. Best response here

[quinnox]

61. I consider him a hero, and if he wants to call himself "Chelsea"

and say he is a woman, that is his business. I consider him a man though, because biologically speaking, that is what he is.

[idwiyo]

63. Simply speaking, this post is an example of transphobic bigotry and TOS violation to boot.

Repeatedly refusing to accept other person's gender identity is bigotry, there are no buts about it. Repeatedly posting the same bigoted statement on DU while perfectly aware that it's hurtful and insulting to transgender DUers and their families is hate speech, plain and simple.

Terms of Service

No bigoted hate speech.

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.