4 ms·
She. Not they. Chelsea Manning identifies as female.
by arbitrage 10y ago
She. Not they. Chelsea Manning identifies as female.
- ishields 10y agoCome on now, "They" does not imply any gender and is appropriate to describe any person
- and0 10y agoI thought the same thing but there's no way a native English speaker would use "they" in that context otherwise. It made me have to go back and see if Wikileaks in general was being referenced.
- DanBC 10y agoI'm a native English speaker. I tend to use "they", and I would have used it in that sentence. Not all native English speakers got an American English education.
- ghostly_s 10y agoIn this context, it reads as a refusal to accept usage of her preferred pronoun.
- quirkafleeg 10y agoTo be fair, I think the commenter would have just used "he" in that case.
- ishields 10y agoThat's a valid interpretation, but it's based on assumptions. Personally I didn't even notice the use of "they" vs "he" or "she" since it's not really relevant to the discussion. In fact, OP has clarified that he/she used "they" only because they were unsure if gender changes apply retroactively since at the time of the leaks, manning identified as a "he"
- losteric 10y agoIt also reads as someone who understands the pronoun issue, but doesn't understand the temporal rules around pronouns. Instead, just opting for the traditional gender-neutral pronoun. There's a lot of different perspectives and opinions, and honestly the rules aren't clear cut yet. At this point I pretty much always refer to people as "them" online.
- gnaritas 10y agoIt is not other people's responsibility to know what your preferred pronoun is; you don't have a right to a preferred pronoun; you don't get to tell other people how they should speak. They is perfectly appropriate in all situations as it is gender neutral.
- bmuon 10y agoSorry, non-native speaker here. But wouldn't "they" apply when you don't know when the gender of the person? In this case you do know.
- ishields 10y ago"They" is the only option when you don't know the gender of the person but it is still valid even if you do know the gender, though less commonly used in that situation
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 27182818284 10y agoTraditionally in US schools you were taught that applying "they" to a non-plural was outright incorrect—as in, a student would lose points if used that way on homework growing up. When you don't know the gender, however, it is really convenient to use "they", so albeit the incorrect form, with time it started to take hold. Lately gender politics have acted as a catalyst as some people outright tell you they prefer that you use the "they/them" pronouns. Since a lot of folks are already comfortable using they/them, it works. A different tactic is to just substitute something else entirely. Books like On Writing encourage young writers to avoid the situation and try to substitute other words rather than use "they" or just default to "he." An example might be using the word "writer". For example the books recommends instead of using "He should learn to use semicolons only when absolutely necessary" use "The writer should learn to use..." instead. I think the latter method is harder in non-formal threads like this. "The imprisoned already has served 7 years" works, but comes across as really impersonal.
- cderwin 10y agoFrom a grammatical perspective it should be noted that "they" is plural. It is gender-neutral, but should only be used when referring to multiple people. The correct gender-neutral singular pronoun is "he or she".
- 10y ago
- vinay427 10y agoThe singular "they" has been used for centuries and is currently somewhat socially acceptable, especially when the gender of the person in question is unknown or disputed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#Pronouns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#P...
- arbitrage 10y agoThe gender of the person in question is not unknown, and doesn't need to be disputed. Chelsea Manning identifies as female.
- minitech 10y ago“they” is an acceptable pronoun for any person; it is gender-neutral.
- na85 10y ago"They" is perfectly acceptable since it is gender-neutral.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nilved 10y ago"They" is a perfectly cromulent pronoun for women.
- rthomas6 10y agoSorry. I didn't know which pronoun to use because I didn't know if gender changes apply retroactively, grammatically speaking. I'm having trouble knowing which one to use to write this post, too. At the time of the leaks Chelsea Manning identified as Bradley, a male. Is it politically correct to use 'she' for all past references, including the times where Chelsea Manning identified as male? Or would it make more sense to use 'he' when Chelsea Manning identified as male, and 'she' when Chelsea Manning identifies as female?
- and0 10y agoVery understandable. I believe pronouns apply retroactively.
- dublinben 10y agoHow Orwellian.
- adrienne 10y agoShe was always a woman; she just presented as a man for many years. The NYT presented the information quite well when they said, "Ms. Manning was still known as Bradley Manning when she deployed with her unit to Iraq in late 2009."
- Prophasi 10y agoThere's obviously no objective truth to whether pronouns apply retroactively; it's just social convention. Clearly, it's polite to respect someone's wishes when talking to or about them, whether it's pronouns, nicknames, personal space, or umpteen other things. If you're introducing Chelsea to another friend, it seems only civil and natural to say "she [not he] was stationed at Fort Drum!" However, I don't think a person can unilaterally require that the world around them retroactively change all references to a historical event, particularly when it renders some of those details nonsensical or wrong. History is written: documents were released by a person calling himself "Bradley Manning" and identifying as (and meeting biological criteria of) a male. Other aspects of the story -- from Manning's all-male combat team to his quarters in the USDB -- hinge on that fact. Manning's presence doesn't imply that the military unit was mixed-gender. One version reports the story as it was known to everyone involved; the other modifies it after the fact according to the unilateral wishes of the subject being reported on. That's not a good pattern, I don't think. As an outsize example, if George W. Bush transitions to a female this year, the US will not celebrate that we've had our first female president. I'm completely sympathetic to interpersonal civility, but empathy goes both ways; I think it's beyond the pale to expect society writ large to scramble, under penalty of being called bigots, to conform to what's frankly an unverifiable declaration of internal personal change on the order of a religious awakening (which oddly doesn't enjoy the same umbrella of unquestioned sanctimony).
- sctb 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13421564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13421564 and marked it off-topic.