10 ms·

The conviction for a serious federal offence I think probably flagged him in the DB ... would be a reasonable reason for this. I don't think there's any scandal

The conviction for a serious federal offence I think probably flagged him in the DB ... would be a reasonable reason for this. I don't think there's any scandal here.

jsjohnst 9y ago
The scandal to me (unrelated to Chelsea directly) is that Canada CBP has higher level access in the US NCIC than most domestic law enforcement agencies.
- slededit 9y ago
  How do you get that from the letter posted? The letter claims she admitted she was incarcerated. That said its no surprise Canada and the USA share their criminal record databases. At least on the Canadian side its been a point of controversy around granted pardons which the US does not recognize.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    > unrelated to Chelsea directly I think you skipped over the above or maybe I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply the letter said that, I have first hand knowledge to my statement.
    - slededit 9y ago
      Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level. On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
      - sunstone 9y ago
        That's the sound of one hand waving bye-bye.
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        Huh?
        slededit 9y ago
        These dismissive comments are unhelpful. The nice thing about HN is substantive discussion can happen, whereas I rarely expect it elsewhere. But preemptive comments like yours can prevent this from happening.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        Email me via contact info in my profile.
chelseafan 9y ago
Her
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  Oh yea - her. I usually only refer to the situation of his disclosure, in which case 'him'. I've never commented before on her, post gender change.
  - anoctopus 9y ago
    It's standard (journalistic) practice to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns even when referencing events before their transition.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      "It's standard (journalistic) practice" I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event , it would seem rather more accurate, no? Also, as long as people are being reasonable I don't think we remotely need that level of language policing.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)? Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?
        ramblerman 9y ago
        > What actual gender The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.

The conviction for a serious federal offence I think probably flagged him in the DB ... would be a reasonable reason for this. I don't think there's any scandal here.

jsjohnst 9y ago

The scandal to me (unrelated to Chelsea directly) is that Canada CBP has higher level access in the US NCIC than most domestic law enforcement agencies.

slededit 9y ago
How do you get that from the letter posted? The letter claims she admitted she was incarcerated. That said its no surprise Canada and the USA share their criminal record databases. At least on the Canadian side its been a point of controversy around granted pardons which the US does not recognize.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  > unrelated to Chelsea directly I think you skipped over the above or maybe I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply the letter said that, I have first hand knowledge to my statement.
  - slededit 9y ago
    Could you possibly expand a bit more on what sort of data in excess of normal law enforcement agencies is shared? I certainly don't want to pry on the situation you are thinking of specifically, but I am curious about the subject on a macro level. On the Canadian side this debate is normally painted as the Americans wanting yet more data. So of course I am curious to hear the debate from the opposite side.
    - sunstone 9y ago
      That's the sound of one hand waving bye-bye.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        Huh?
      - slededit 9y ago
        These dismissive comments are unhelpful. The nice thing about HN is substantive discussion can happen, whereas I rarely expect it elsewhere. But preemptive comments like yours can prevent this from happening.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      Email me via contact info in my profile.

chelseafan 9y ago

Her

alexasmyths 9y ago
Oh yea - her. I usually only refer to the situation of his disclosure, in which case 'him'. I've never commented before on her, post gender change.
- anoctopus 9y ago
  It's standard (journalistic) practice to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns even when referencing events before their transition.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    "It's standard (journalistic) practice" I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event , it would seem rather more accurate, no? Also, as long as people are being reasonable I don't think we remotely need that level of language policing.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I'm definitely not a journalist. I think it's reasonable to refer to someone as their actual gender during an actual event What actual gender? You mean legal sex/gender (which is a form of externally-ascribed gender)? Or do you mean gender identity and, if so, on what basis do you assess it?
      - ramblerman 9y ago
        > What actual gender The biological one. I'm fine with using a social construct and even embedding it into law. But let's not pretend biology doesn't exist. There is an 'actual' gender.