Jump to content

LGBTQ The Next


Stubby

Recommended Posts

I would just name the victim by their identified name: "The victim Dominique" or however you would just name a person without referring to their being another name. Unless it's suspected of being a hate crime I'm not sure her being trans is relevant at all.

But which "identified name?" That wasn't the way her name was "identified" on the official police report that the reporter saw. No official document would have a first name only. How many news stories have you read about a murder victim where only a first name was given - with no explanation as to why only one name is used? I'll tell you how many: none. It never happens.

When a crime like this happens, the victim's full name is always reported - unless there is a specific reason. In this case it's because the victim "went by the name of Dominique."

Her legal name was never given in the report. That is especially telling. Why do you think that is?

I can only think of two reasons:

1) The reporter only knew the name "Dominique" and was told that it wasn't the victim's real name. That seems really unlikely given that the reporter spoke with the police and likely had a copy of the police report. Law enforcement never just use just a person's first name or alias without also including a last name.

or 2) Someone (likely the victim's friend) asked the reporter not to use the victim's real name. It could have been the police too, but I doubt it. I suspect that the reporter was asked not to reveal the victim's real name for some reason. And the reporter was sensitive enough to abide by that request, giving only the victim's preferred name.

Which of those seems more plausible to you? Or can you think of a third reason why the victim was only referred to as "Dominique?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think intersex persons are often an invisible group - I mean it isn't something I really know much about. I certainly hadn't considered the issues surrounding "corrective" surgery done at birth.

I think the recognition of a third gender will help to create a society more accepting of those who don't want to pick one of the existing two....though I suspect that's still going to be a long way off unfortunately.

It is a long way off, but I truly believe we have to cheer any step, however small, in these fights for what's right. And what's done to intersex kids is horrifying. All in the name of looking "normal". Its infuriating. Did you ever read anything about David Reimer? He wasn't trans or intersex, but a circumcision accident at birth caused the doctors to eventually reassign him as a girl. he had a twin brother so he was the perfect "experiment" for John Money, the doc out of Johns Hopkins who really pushed the whole 'reassign kids at birth to look right' agenda. Its a very sad and upsetting story. Reading any of the interviews with intersex folks that have had this done to them is sad... and enraging. There used to be (may still be for all I know) a fairly good size community of intersex folks in the SF Bay Area and while they weren't terribly visible, they produced a lot of newsletters and that kind of thing to get some information out there. But it never seems to make it into the mainstream view. I think doctors here in the US are starting to rethink the reassignment at birth, but it really needs to stop all together.

Unless it's suspected of being a hate crime I'm not sure her being trans is relevant at all.

I agree with this. I hate how the media often pulls in stuff that isn't relevant just to hook readers (I assume that's why they do it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[mod] 'Let it go' means 'let it go'. That discussion has been through very thoroughly, everyone has had a chance to put their position, it is now done. [/mod]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to head in a different direction, I awoke, this morning to the news that Bradley Manning, recently sentenced to 35 years in prison for illegally releasing 750,000 classified documents, now claims to be a woman and wants to be known as Chelsea Manning. The dichotomy of my feelings on this revelation is off the scale. I better find something else to think about, before my head explodes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to head in a different direction, I awoke, this morning to the news that Bradley Manning, recently sentenced to 35 years in prison for illegally releasing 750,000 classified documents, now claims to be a woman and wants to be known as Chelsea Manning. The dichotomy of my feelings on this revelation is off the scale. I better find something else to think about, before my head explodes.

I had heard before Manning was trans* to some extent, but I did not realize she had decided. Although I vaguely remember seeing pieces that her lawyers made her present as a man to 'keep things simple'.

eta: see for example this 2011 piece http://globalcomment.com/why-does-the-media-still-refer-to-%E2%80%9Cbradley%E2%80%9D-manning-the-curious-silence-around-a-transgender-hero/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It loaded slow for me now. I'll quote a bit from the beginning. This was apparently published 22 december 2011

One of the most persistent threads throughout the two years of imprisonment of accused Wikileaks leaker Private Bradley Manning has been the rumour that he is in fact, she–a transgender woman. Manning faces thirty charges, one of which “aiding the enemy” potentially carries the death penalty (though life in prison is more likely) for leaking hundreds of thousands of documents via the website Wikileaks including the shocking “Collateral Murder” video. Dismissed by many as a smear or simply irrelevant to the case, this transgender story has nevertheless refused to die.

In June 2010, Wired published excerpted chat logs between Manning and hacker Adrian Lamo that suggested that Manning considered herself female. Manning states quite clearly:

“ I wouldn’t mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn’t for the possibility of having pictures of me… plastered all over the world press… as boy…”

Wired then followed this up a year later in published the full chat logs in which Manning very clearly states that she is trans, frets about accessing transitioning treatment and talks about being discharged as “adjustment disorder” rather than GID under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Finally, she gives us a female name for herself: Breanna, stating that she’d set up a Twitter and Youtube account.

New York magazine added to the speculation by publishing a feature article focusing on Manning’s sexuality and gender identity in which an anonymous counselor claims that Manning had talked to him on the web about being transgender:

“Bradley felt he [sic] was female,” the counselor told me. “He [sic] was very solid on that.” Quickly, their conversation shifted to the practicalities: How does someone transition from male to female? “He [sic] really wanted to do surgery,” the counselor recalled. “He [sic] was mostly afraid of being alone, being ostracized or somehow weird.”

Despite this mounting evidence, Manning’s lawyers and supporters continued to make no mention of any preference for female identification, pronouns or the name Breanna, leaving Manning’s likely transgender status something of an open secret, and posing journalists with a conundrum: either the logs are true, and then we should be respectfully following APA protocol for transgender people and using female pronouns and possibly the name Breanna, or they are false and we should not. Whether they believed in the logs’ veracity or not (and odds are, most who believe Manning to be a hero do), I have not found a single media source who appears to have considered the possibility of writing about Manning as a woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, that site crashes my browser, every time, though I was able to read the title. I knew Manning's attorney had made a statement to that effect, at trial. I even blogged it. I wasn't aware of previous mention.

So, another good learning opportunity for me, and a talking point. Should we provide the transition in prison? Not sure how I feel about that.

Ties into our last conversation as well. Bradley hasn't actually changed the name legally so should he be known as bradley, or should he be 'go by' Breanna?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, another good learning opportunity for me, and a talking point. Should we provide the transition in prison? Not sure how I feel about that.

Ties into our last conversation as well. Bradley hasn't actually changed the name legally so should he be known as bradley, or should he be 'go by' Breanna?

Apparently she chooses to go by Chelsea now, that piece was an older one to show that we knew already what is apparently big news today.

http://www.theguardi...er-reassignment

http://www.today.com...ment-6C10974052

I want to thank everybody who has supported me over the last three years. Throughout this long ordeal, your letters of support and encouragement have helped keep me strong. I am forever indebted to those who wrote to me, made a donation to my defense fund, or came to watch a portion of the trial. I would especially like to thank Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network for their tireless efforts in raising awareness for my case and providing for my legal representation.

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back.

Thank you,

Chelsea E. Manning

eta: so going by the warning about official mail it is her choice, but not necessarily official

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently she chooses to go by Chelsea now, that piece was an older one to show that we knew already what is apparently big news today.

http://www.theguardi...er-reassignment

http://www.today.com...ment-6C10974052

eta: so going by the warning about official mail it is her choice, but not necessarily official

When the defense raised the issue in a sentencing hearing, I thought it just a tactic to mitigate punishment. Now, I'm not so sure. I realize I've stopped using Manning's first name or personal pronouns. I'm hoping it is just a scam to gain sympathy, but fear it may be true. In any event, Manning will not be getting any mail from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the defense raised the issue in a sentencing hearing, I thought it just a tactic to mitigate punishment. Now, I'm not so sure. I realize I've stopped using Manning's first name or personal pronouns. I'm hoping it is just a scam to gain sympathy, but fear it may be true. In any event, Manning will not be getting any mail from me.

There should not be any relation between what Manning did, and how one perceives that and Manning's gender identity. I won't expect anyone to change their minds over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin - I've been aware of it and assumed it was coming after the sentence, I'm just surprised she has come out already. I can't remember all of where I saw it, but I know she was in contact with an activist who has also transitioned named Zinnia Jones (I think they were talking prior to Zinnia's transition too), I saw some of it either on her blog or YouTube channel and she was subpoenaed to the trial. It's not an excuse, and her transition should absolutely be allowed unless you want the sentence to be 35 years of torture instead of prison, and yes perfect example of please respect pronouns and her name even though it's not legal yet.

I've got more complex thoughts on her use of it in the defence but I need a proper keyboard first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

karaddin,

If the statement is genuine, it should be allowed, but not at taxpayer expense. If family and friends want to contribute, I'd have no objection

Also, parole is possible, but not guaranteed, after 8 years. The odd thing is that before I learned of this, I'd have thought 35 years of torture was about right, but not that kind of torture. As far as the name is concerned, in the US, a court order is not required. I think that part of the statement was designed to prevent a lot of letters being returned to sender - addressee unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be misunderstanding, but I'm pretty sure in a US prison it can only be funded by the public, they aren't going to let her bring in drugs paid for by her family?

The cost of HRT alone isn't really much anyway and is negligible in comparison to her incarceration expenses, unless it's a lot more in the US than here which I don't think it's the case. My question is what prison does she get sent to? I suspect she's going to end up being the fall person for very important court cases on this subject.

And yeah I get the parole in 8 years thing, but the sentence is 35 whether it's prison or torture... Not my fault your sentences and actual time served frequently are so different :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless things have changed beyond what I'm aware of, the sentence would be served at the US Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. At this point, one has to assume it will be away from the prison's general population. As far as hormone therapy, I don't think that is much of a problem, unless they want to be especially nasty. It is no more difficult or expensive than treating any number of medical conditions that the facility encounters. Surgery is another matter, both from the standpoint of cost and the fact they have no qualified staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Army have said she'll serve her time as a man, no HRT etc according to the Washington Post. As I said earlier, I expect there will be court cases that probably set precedent and stand to change army policy on trans people coming out of this.

My feelings on the way the defense used her struggling with a trans identity as a mitigating factor are mixed. I think it's reasonable to say that she was struggling immensely and not fit for duty on the basis of this turmoil, and that the stance on trans people both prevented help being provided to make her fit for duty and personnel shortfalls prevented her from being stood down. I do think that the army shares some responsibility for ignoring mental health problems in it's soldiers that go on to take actions the army condemns as a result of this break down. This to me is a mitigating factor, not an excuse and should influence the sentence but not the verdict. I do not think being trans/struggling with a trans identity is in itself a defense or a mitigating factor and the defense went awfully close to going with this option, that's both distasteful/offensive and harms acceptance of trans people. That said I can understand pursuing such a tactic when the fate of your life is on the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...