3 ms·

Sorry. 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

Sorry. 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 ago
Very understandable. I believe pronouns apply retroactively.
- dublinben 10y ago
  How Orwellian.
adrienne 10y ago
She 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 ago
There'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).
dragonwriter 10y ago
The most accepted usage among those sensitive at all to gender identity (since the person is the same) seems to be to use the current pronouns for all references to the person, even if they are to times before their current gender identity was generally recognized by others (or even formed clearly, though only the former is arguably relevant in this discussion of Manning.) > At the time of the leaks Chelsea Manning identified as Bradley, a male. Manning's first discussion with a gender counselor about identifying as a woman was a couple months before her first contact with WikiLeaks; presumably there was some time lapse between recognizing the identity and talking to a counselor. So, from the evidence available, I don't think it's correct that Manning identified as male at the time of the leaks.

and0 10y ago

Very understandable. I believe pronouns apply retroactively.

dublinben 10y ago
How Orwellian.

adrienne 10y ago

She 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 ago

There'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).

dragonwriter 10y ago

The most accepted usage among those sensitive at all to gender identity (since the person is the same) seems to be to use the current pronouns for all references to the person, even if they are to times before their current gender identity was generally recognized by others (or even formed clearly, though only the former is arguably relevant in this discussion of Manning.) > At the time of the leaks Chelsea Manning identified as Bradley, a male. Manning's first discussion with a gender counselor about identifying as a woman was a couple months before her first contact with WikiLeaks; presumably there was some time lapse between recognizing the identity and talking to a counselor. So, from the evidence available, I don't think it's correct that Manning identified as male at the time of the leaks.