3 ms·

I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. Those who do not view her actions favoura

by fruzz 11y ago

I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns. That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.

dysfunction 11y ago
It might just be that people who view classified government info leakers/whistleblowers negatively tend to lean conservative, and so do those who view trans people negatively. It doesn't necessarily have to be that her trans status is causing anti-transgender people to also have an unfavorable view of the leaks (though that is certainly also possible).
delecti 11y ago
Another possibility is that most people are relatively indifferent towards trans issues, and in a sense revoke their respect of her based on their negative perception of her perceived transgressions. Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.
amyjess 11y ago
I refuse to misgender her, I'm trans myself, and I don't view her favorably. And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.
- ionised 11y ago
  > And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance. I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.
542458 11y ago
I'd suggest a more innocuous explanation: those who view her actions favourably are more "up to date" with her situation (including coming out as trans), while those who don't are less up to date and might not be aware. In my personal situation, I feel that while some of the leaks were very justified, a lot of the material had no reason to be released [1]. Anyways, I don't pay much attention to the case, and wasn't aware that Manning was no longer a "he". If I had just skimmed the page before commenting I might have made the same mistake. I'm sure some people are doing it on purpose, but it's important to remember that for the highest-profile parts of the case Manning was still a "he". [1] I'm not sure what camp that puts me in - I'm not opposed to the leak of a certain subset of the leaked material, but I do feel that by not redacting anything what Manning did was irresponsible. Side note: is there no way to escape asterisks on HN?
- npizzolato 11y ago
  This is the case for me. There's nothing nefarious about it. When the case was prominently in the media, "he" was Bradley Manning, and so that's what I think of when I see any headline just referring to her as Manning. It's only after reading the article or comments I am reminded that she is "Chelsea" now. For the record, I lean towards thinking she should be found guilty, but I haven't put enough thought into it to feel strongly.
tsotha 11y ago
>I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. I don't see a moral obligation to use the pronouns people assign to themselves.

by fruzz 11y ago

dysfunction 11y ago

It might just be that people who view classified government info leakers/whistleblowers negatively tend to lean conservative, and so do those who view trans people negatively. It doesn't necessarily have to be that her trans status is causing anti-transgender people to also have an unfavorable view of the leaks (though that is certainly also possible).

delecti 11y ago

Another possibility is that most people are relatively indifferent towards trans issues, and in a sense revoke their respect of her based on their negative perception of her perceived transgressions. Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.

amyjess 11y ago

I refuse to misgender her, I'm trans myself, and I don't view her favorably. And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.

ionised 11y ago
> And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance. I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.

542458 11y ago

I'd suggest a more innocuous explanation: those who view her actions favourably are more "up to date" with her situation (including coming out as trans), while those who don't are less up to date and might not be aware. In my personal situation, I feel that while some of the leaks were very justified, a lot of the material had no reason to be released [1]. Anyways, I don't pay much attention to the case, and wasn't aware that Manning was no longer a "he". If I had just skimmed the page before commenting I might have made the same mistake. I'm sure some people are doing it on purpose, but it's important to remember that for the highest-profile parts of the case Manning was still a "he". [1] I'm not sure what camp that puts me in - I'm not opposed to the leak of a certain subset of the leaked material, but I do feel that by not redacting anything what Manning did was irresponsible. Side note: is there no way to escape asterisks on HN?

npizzolato 11y ago
This is the case for me. There's nothing nefarious about it. When the case was prominently in the media, "he" was Bradley Manning, and so that's what I think of when I see any headline just referring to her as Manning. It's only after reading the article or comments I am reminded that she is "Chelsea" now. For the record, I lean towards thinking she should be found guilty, but I haven't put enough thought into it to feel strongly.

tsotha 11y ago

>I'm noticing in these posts that those who view Chelsea Manning's actions favourably use the right name and pronouns. I don't see a moral obligation to use the pronouns people assign to themselves.