Chelsea Manning

[Moonage Daydream]

2. I don't doubt in the least that Bradley Manning seeks gender reassignment hormone therapy and surgery. Desiring something and describing that as an accomplished fact are quite different. Worse yet is the neo-Orwellian revision of biography, effectively backdating this pseudoreality to birth. It's really quite offensive, BLP-PC run amuck.

"backdating this pseudoreality to birth". Ah. I think I get it now. It just makes more sense (to me) to stick with one pronoun instead of using "he" in the past and "she" in the present/future. For me, consistently calling Manning "she" is not redefining who they were in the past.

[Mancunium]

I don't know why I bother, but:

Chelsea Manning, Transgender People and the Army
Huffington Post UK, 26 August 2013 link

In a paper entitled 'Transgender People in the Military: Don't Ask? Don't Tell? Don't Enlist!' by Adam Yerke from the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, and Valory Mitchell from the California School of Professional Psychology, evidence is marshalled that there could be a higher rate of transgender people in military service than expected.

Their paper in the 'Journal of Homosexuality' indicates there is some evidence suggesting that the rate of male-to-female transsexuals in the military may even be two or three time the rate in the general population. But Adam Yerke cautions no one really knows yet the true rate in the army.

Adam Yerke and Valory Mitchell cite psychiatrists who report meeting 11 biological males with gender dysphoria and eight of these had extensive active military experience. Other clinicians cited in other studies, according to Yerke and Mitchell, also indicated that over half of their male-to-female transsexual patients had served in the military.

Yerke and Mitchell point out that transgender people may be especially interested in the armed forces because of the weight placed on traditional masculine values, particularly given gender identity confusion is a frequent phase in transgender identity development, leading to attempts of repressing these difficulties.

[Randy from Boise]

1. I think what Bradley Manning tried to do, which is expose United States war crimes and official duplicity, was heroic. His lack of selectivity in what was leaked and how, is highly questionable — but his motives seem to have been true.

Bradley Manning never fit in; rightly or wrongly he was rejected by the herd, so he betrayed them. This has nothing to do with heroic acts of justice. This is not rocket science.

Well, that's a highly arguable psychobiographical explanation, at best. If this is really "the herd," god help us all... http://youtu.be/ogFZlRiTHuw RfB

Tim, how in any way does that justify posting tens of thousands of mundane diplomatic cables. Manning wasn't interested in justice or whistle blowing. He was just an angry young man, one of nearly 1.4 million that idiot Bush gave unnecessary security clearance to.

Like I said: "His lack of selectivity in what was leaked and how, is highly questionable — but his motives seem to have been true."

tim

[Randy from Boise]

2. I don't doubt in the least that Bradley Manning seeks gender reassignment hormone therapy and surgery. Desiring something and describing that as an accomplished fact are quite different. Worse yet is the neo-Orwellian revision of biography, effectively backdating this pseudoreality to birth. It's really quite offensive, BLP-PC run amuck.

"backdating this pseudoreality to birth". Ah. I think I get it now. It just makes more sense (to me) to stick with one pronoun instead of using "he" in the past and "she" in the present/future. For me, consistently calling Manning "she" is not redefining who they were in the past.

The way a normal biographer would work is chapters on the boy use he, on the male soldier use he, on the post-soldier changing genders uses she when appropriate.

The same thing with name changes for women. A woman is Jane Smith when she is a girl, then becomes Jane Jones as soon as that becomes her name. One doesn't write Jane Jones throughout and then file that into the memory hole and rewrite everything as "Jane Thompson" when she marries again.

With regards to Manning, this is all very common sense, but it doesn't make the Big Glorious Point that POV Warriors seek to make. And gosh, the BLP Doves (who are almost as annoying) think we should do just ANYTHING to avoid causing a BLP subject possible personal distress.

It's really annoying, but whatcha gonna do?

RfB

[SB_Johnny]

I don't know why I bother, but:

Chelsea Manning, Transgender People and the Army
Huffington Post UK, 26 August 2013 link

In a paper entitled 'Transgender People in the Military: Don't Ask? Don't Tell? Don't Enlist!' by Adam Yerke from the Chicago School of Professional Psychology, and Valory Mitchell from the California School of Professional Psychology, evidence is marshalled that there could be a higher rate of transgender people in military service than expected.

Their paper in the 'Journal of Homosexuality' indicates there is some evidence suggesting that the rate of male-to-female transsexuals in the military may even be two or three time the rate in the general population. But Adam Yerke cautions no one really knows yet the true rate in the army.

Adam Yerke and Valory Mitchell cite psychiatrists who report meeting 11 biological males with gender dysphoria and eight of these had extensive active military experience. Other clinicians cited in other studies, according to Yerke and Mitchell, also indicated that over half of their male-to-female transsexual patients had served in the military.

Yerke and Mitchell point out that transgender people may be especially interested in the armed forces because of the weight placed on traditional masculine values, particularly given gender identity confusion is a frequent phase in transgender identity development, leading to attempts of repressing these difficulties.

Well, that certainly meshes with common sense. If you want to embrace "manliness", joining the military is a good way to go.

[eppur si muove]

On use of gender pronouns, see e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... ating.html for an example of reliable sources using a feminine pronoun in to describe what someone did 19 years before her sex change. And the Torygraph isn't exactly a den of lefty PCness.

[TungstenCarbide]

1. I think what Bradley Manning tried to do, which is expose United States war crimes and official duplicity, was heroic. His lack of selectivity in what was leaked and how, is highly questionable — but his motives seem to have been true.

Bradley Manning never fit in; rightly or wrongly he was rejected by the herd, so he betrayed them. This has nothing to do with heroic acts of justice. This is not rocket science.

Well, that's a highly arguable psychobiographical explanation, at best. If this is really "the herd," god help us all... http://youtu.be/ogFZlRiTHuw RfB

Tim, how in any way does that justify posting tens of thousands of mundane diplomatic cables. Manning wasn't interested in justice or whistle blowing. He was just an angry young man, one of nearly 1.4 million that idiot Bush gave unnecessary security clearance to.

Like I said: "His lack of selectivity in what was leaked and how, is highly questionable — but his motives seem to have been true."

His 'lack of selectivity in what was leaked' betrays 'his motives', Tim.

[Vigilant]

His 'lack of selectivity in what was leaked' betrays 'his motives', Tim.

Horseshit.

He was 18. He knew what he was seeing was way to the wrong side of illegal.
He made a giant dump of everything that he thought might be pertinent due to the massive over classification of mundane stuff.

He dumped it without compensation.

Feel free to disagree with what he did or why he did it, but don't try to change the facts of the case.
en.wp is ---> thataway if that's your goal.

[TungstenCarbide]

His 'lack of selectivity in what was leaked' betrays 'his motives', Tim.

Horseshit. He was 18.

probably shouldn't have had a 'top secret' security clearance then.

He knew what he was seeing was way to the wrong side of illegal.

War is dirty business. Sow me a case where that's not true.

He made a giant dump of everything that he thought might be pertinent due to the massive over classification of mundane stuff.

Man helps a little old lady cross the road, then burns down the town. What a guy. Moron.

He dumped it without compensation.

I suspect he was an angry reject, and that's why he did what he did. But go ahead and thump your chest in self-righteousness for him.

Feel free to disagree with what he did or why he did it, but don't try to change the facts of the case.

I didn't.

en.wp is ---> thataway if that's your goal.

Go fuck yourself.

[Zoloft]

en.wp is ---> thataway if that's your goal.

Go fuck yourself.

Gentlemen, please desist.

[Tarc]

Feel free to disagree with what he did or why he did it, but don't try to change the facts of the case.

There's a lot of facts in this case that aren't readily found. I'd like to know just how a 5' 2" 105lb guy managed to pass the APFT in the first place, or force march with a 40-60lb rucksack.

[Randy from Boise]

If this is really "the herd," god help us all...

http://youtu.be/ogFZlRiTHuw

Why did you choose to link the "Collateral Murder" cut of the video?

Because it was the first one I found on YouTube and I am lazy.

"Collateral Murder" is pretty descriptive, don't you think?


tim

[HRIP7]

Jay Hathaway, The Daily Dot: Wikipedia decides Chelsea Manning will remain 'Bradley' for now

When convicted WikiLeaks whistleblower Pfc. Chelsea Manning—née Bradley Manning—announced she would live as a female, Wikipedia editors launched into an intense debate about how to handle Manning's gender reassignment.

Now, the administrators' official verdict is in. On Wikipedia, Chelsea has been sentenced to remain Bradley. [...]

Wales himself dismissed the argument, maintaining that discussion and a vote was the fairest way to settle the debate.

"I'd like to suggest that rhetoric that using the name 'Bradley' rather than 'Chelsea' is a 'form of violence' against that person is completely false, and it not something that is even remotely 'generally considered' to be violence," he added.

[Hersch]

Oh God, I hope you're not one of those people who, if President Obama starts a sentence with "As a black man, I...", "corrects" him with "half-black, you mean!"

There are few things more odious on Wikipedia than the hordes of people who spend their time ethno-tagging people as something other than what they consider themselves because some "reliable source" somewhere said their mother was Jewish, or not Jewish, or whatever.

Reliable source:

[thekohser]

It's really annoying, but whatcha gonna do?

At worst, you could abandon the really annoying project; and at best, the really annoying project would be shut down.

But, I don't suppose either good thing will come to pass.

[Fuzzgun '91]

Now at ArbCom, where there is some indication that a Manning case could result in a major BLP ruling.

[Midsize Jake]

Also, I see there's a ragequit posting from long-term WR bete noire Phil "Snowspinner" Sandifer, after he tweeted the following:

There is no moral difference between referring to Chelsea Manning as "Bradley" and using the n-word. None.

...which I would say is a bit disrespectful to black people, at the very least. (Maybe more than "a bit!") But hey, he was always like that, which is why he got bashed so often back in the day. (Well, that and any number of other weird-scary things he used to do...)

Still no ragequit from Dave Gerard, but I guess you wouldn't expect him to want to give everyone else the satisfaction.

[Vigilant]

What?
Again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =445833244

The fact of the matter is, over the course of several years, a band of committed idiots has systematically and successfully attempted to ruin Wikipedia for virtually all of the purposes that I ever use it for. Hardline interpretations of policies well beyond what they were ever intended to cover and implementation with no thought to the bigger picture have effectively rendered Wikipedia a useless resource on any topics in the humanities beyond what would be covered in an introductory class, and coverage of fiction has managed to spectacularly decline to thread the needle between obsessive fannish trivia and completely ignoring topics, managing to do one or the other, but never actually offering good coverage.

In other words, for anything I would want to use this project for on a regular basis, it has failed and failed spectacularly. A pity. It was a good idea eight years ago when I started, and I miss that project like hell. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You were a dick on wikipedia. Nobody misses you.

He quit his quitting then quit?

[Vigilant]

Now at ArbCom, where there is some indication that a Manning case could result in a major BLP ruling.

Interesting that our token conservative isn't listed among the parties.

You're welcome.

And let's not forget the dimbulbs who have equated calling someone by their birth name to be akin to physical violence.

An article featuring Morwen.
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/20 ... me-chelsea

My favorite question

It seems the page is full of the professionally outraged. Do you think they really are aiming at making the best encyclopaedia possible?

Touche.

I think they mean this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... osh_Gorand

The trans Ottava.

[Wer900]

Now at ArbCom, where there is some indication that a Manning case could result in a major BLP ruling.

Interesting that our token conservative isn't listed among the parties.

You're welcome.

And let's not forget the dimbulbs who have equated calling someone by their birth name to be akin to physical violence.

An article featuring Morwen.
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/20 ... me-chelsea

My favorite question

It seems the page is full of the professionally outraged. Do you think they really are aiming at making the best encyclopaedia possible?

Touche.

I think they mean this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... osh_Gorand

The trans Ottava.

What I noticed most is that David Gerard is at it again:

Morwen wrote up a detailed explanation of our original rationale for the move to "Chelsea Manning", which I checked over and co-signed. It's too long to include here directly, but I ask you to read it. (The only thing it lacks is something on BLP and immediacy, which I noted below it.) Our original action was a BLP action concerning a high-profile article; there was no path of action that would not have been controversial, but that's what the BLP rule is for. I also maintain that everything therein is still a relevant consideration.

Controversy, or potential controversy, should not overrule BLP. Many editors have demanded sanctions against us both on the basis that BLP actions should not be taken if there might be controversy or if consensus would eventually come to a different result (as if an appeals court reversal would automatically lead to a disciplinary hearing for the lower-court judge); if this were accepted, BLP would be dead, as no admin would dare enter into a controversial situation.

Morwen and I explained our actions on the article talk page at the time of the move. There have been repeated claims we did not; these are false. Many editors claim we did not answer, when what they mean is they did not agree. I ask that any claims to this effect be checked closely against our edit histories over the past week.

I urge the Committee not to punt on the naming of the article. While the admins who took on the job of the RM should be commended for taking on a difficult task that lots of people would be unhappy with either result of, I feel that their result was disastrously wrong. Given no clear consensus, they eventually decided that counting votes overcame BLP considerations. We now have a biography of a living person whose title is a deliberate and procedurally calculated misnaming and misgendering of its subject, directly against the undisputed wishes of its subject, in a situation where readers would have no problem finding it under the subject's chosen name, because of the votes of editors who literally don't see there's a problem, don't think there's a reason for guidelines on the topic that have stood and been applied for years, and are offended when someone points out they may not know all there is to know on the topic. And it'll stay there, marking Wikipedia to the world as a trans-hostile venue, for at least the next thirty days.

There is also the wider issue of what this says about Wikipedia to trans and trans-friendly readers and editors: we will tell you what your name is. I despair of explaining to skeptics how profoundly offensive this is - not just to Manning, but to all trans and trans-friendly readers and editors, as offensive as egregious racism or homophobia in Wikipedia policy would be, and in the same way - and of finding a source sufficient to convince editors who literally question the existence of trans issues as something to be taken seriously of the towering importance of this issue; editors opposed to "Chelsea Manning" have so far refused to accept the almost-complete move of the British press within hours, the substantial move of the US press over the past week, the AP style guide and the GLAAD Media Reference Guide.

People will, and should, talk about this in blogs and to the press when asked, because we are a top 10 website of profound social importance run by a charity funded by public donations, this is an issue that reaches far beyond a single article subject, and as such we do actually owe the world explanations, and they will be demanding them. This is a huge issue, but that's why it's at your door.

- David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: despite (again) repeated claims by many editors, it is important to note that Morwen has taken no admin actions whatsoever on this article at any time; her actions were those of any ordinary editor with move powers, seeing a BLP concern - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Translation: I want to create more drama, you are all LGBT-hating conservatives, yada yada yada.

He should join the faculty of Fæ University. But for now, he should just shut his anterior anus; only shit comes out of there right now.

[tarantino]

Also, I see there's a ragequit posting from long-term WR bete noire Phil "Snowspinner" Sandifer, after he tweeted the following:

There is no moral difference between referring to Chelsea Manning as "Bradley" and using the n-word. None.

...which I would say is a bit disrespectful to black people, at the very least. (Maybe more than "a bit!") But hey, he was always like that, which is why he got bashed so often back in the day. (Well, that and any number of other weird-scary things he used to do...)

See also his histrionic blog post, "The Slow-Motion Lynching of Chelsea Manning", originally titled "The High Tech Lynching of Breanna". He should work off some of that anger by writing some murder fantasy.

[Fuzzgun '91]

It'll stay there, marking Wikipedia to the world as a trans-hostile venue, for at least the next thirty days.

- David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

He should join the faculty of Fæ University.

Few complaints about Wikipedia ring as false as those, raised by Gerard, Van Haeften, and others, which decry the supposedly LGBT-hostile editing environment.

[HRIP7]

Sue Gardner has weighed in personally:

Statement by Sue Gardner[edit source]
This is my first contribution to an ArbCom case and so I may do it wrong: if so, please forgive me and/or fix my mistakes. I am commenting here as an ordinary editor, although of course my views have been influenced by my experiences and observations in my seven years as WMF ED.

I believe ArbCom should accept the Chelsea Manning case, and that its work should encompass the following:

A clarification of the BLP policy: what does it apply to and what is its purpose. Some editors seem to believe BLP is intended as a narrow defence against claims of libel, and/or does not apply to all article elements. My understanding (based on many discussions with Jimmy and other Board members and experienced editors, and supported by this) is that BLP is broad and intended to hold editors to a higher standard than the legal minimum. I would like ArbCom to issue a clear statement on this issue.

An evaluation of whether editors can be sanctioned for actions taken in good faith in support of BLP. I find David Gerard's "court of appeals reversal" analogy useful here.

An evaluation of how Wikipedia handles trans issues, and policy guidance for how they should be handled. Particularly, perhaps:

An evaluation of the role of subject-matter expertise in the Manning debates. Throughout the discussions, much editor commentary (for example, the suggestions that Manning might repeatedly and whimsically change her mind) revealed a lack of basic understanding of trans issues. And, editors who have demonstrated subject-matter expertise have been accused of bias. This is aberrant: normally, evidence that an editor has researched and thought about a topic results in their comments being understood as more credible rather than less.

An evaluation of editor behaviour throughout this dispute. I agree with Courcelles that Morwen and DG should not be sanctioned: I believe they conducted themselves well. The same cannot be said of everyone involved. There has been a great deal of uninformed “gut feeling” type commentary from editors, some of it arguably transphobic, and none of it sanctioned or struck. It's hard to stop people from cluttering up discussions with ill-informed gut reactions, but it is not impossible to remove the most inflammatory, and doing that can have a calming effect and raise the overall quality of debate.

Some guidance from ArbCom on how editors might choose to conduct themselves in disputes in which they have little expertise, and in which systemic bias risks skewing outcomes. In the Manning situation, for a variety of reasons that may have included systemic bias, !voting did not achieve a result consistent with BLP. Given that Wikipedia makes decisions by consensus, how can majority-culture (male, young, Western, heterosexual) editors best participate in discussions in ways that work towards good decision-making, rather than groupthink?

I do really believe that ArbCom should take this case. I don't believe tempers will settle over time: I think editors are stuck and not making progress. Sue Gardner (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

She doesn't seem to realise that ArbCom cannot make policy.

[Vigilant]

Sue Gardner opens her mouth and looks like an idiot.
News at 11.

P.S. If you're taking advice from David Gerard, you're probably doing it wrong.

[HRIP7]

Just to explain the point, Sue Gardner seems to be blissfully unaware that the arbitration committee is constitutionally unable to define policy. This is spelled out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _precedent

The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.

The committee may only "interpret existing policy and guidelines" defined by the "community" – which Gardner so aptly describes as demographically skewed, and vulnerable to groupthink.

The fact that she has run the Wikimedia Foundation for seven years and does not know this explains a lot.

The same goes for her suggestion that the committee evaluate "the role of subject-matter expertise in the Manning debates" or provide "guidance ... on how editors might choose to conduct themselves in disputes in which they have little expertise".

If the arbitration committee tried to provide such guidance, they would be shot down in no time. The entire Wikipedia decision-making system is based on the consensus of non-experts, and those same non-experts want exactly that system and no other. The thought that ignorance should disenfranchise them is intolerable to Wikipedians.

Again, that Gardner doesn't understand this, after seven years of running the Foundation, is breathtaking.

[Vigilant]

Just to explain the point, Sue Gardner seems to be blissfully unaware that the arbitration committee is constitutionally unable to define policy. This is spelled out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _precedent

The committee may only "interpret existing policy and guidelines" defined by the "community" – which Gardner so aptly describes as demographically skewed, and vulnerable to groupthink.

The fact that she has run the Wikimedia Foundation for seven years and does not know this explains a lot.

The same goes for her suggestion that the committee evaluate "the role of subject-matter expertise in the Manning debates" or provide "guidance ... on how editors might choose to conduct themselves in disputes in which they have little expertise".

If the arbitration committee tried to provide such guidance, they would be shot down in no time. The entire Wikipedia decision-making system is based on the consensus of non-experts, and those same non-experts want exactly that system and no other. The thought that ignorance should disenfranchise them is intolerable to Wikipedians.

Again, that Gardner doesn't understand this, after seven years of running the Foundation, is breathtaking.

I think it's worse than you've stated.
The "expert gets hounded off of wikipedia by the dunces" thing has happened SO OFTEN that its practically a cliche.

[Tarc]

Now at ArbCom, where there is some indication that a Manning case could result in a major BLP ruling.

Interesting that our token conservative isn't listed among the parties.

Who, what, me?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single actionable statement or action of mine. IMO my on-wiki discourse has been rather measured.

[HRIP7]

I think it's worse than you've stated.
The "expert gets hounded off of wikipedia by the dunces" thing has happened SO OFTEN that its practically a cliche.

Aye.

[Vigilant]

Now at ArbCom, where there is some indication that a Manning case could result in a major BLP ruling.

Interesting that our token conservative isn't listed among the parties.

Who, what, me?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single actionable statement or action of mine. IMO my on-wiki discourse has been rather measured.

I meant that you're a convenient target for this particular insanity.

[Vigilant]

IRC must be on fire right now.

I love how April Arcus canvasses with her blog for people to chime in, IP editors swarm a poll, she says, "Mea Culpa" and nothing is done in regards ot the most serious canvassing flooding during an intensely provocative case.

[Tarc]

Now at ArbCom, where there is some indication that a Manning case could result in a major BLP ruling.

Interesting that our token conservative isn't listed among the parties.

Who, what, me?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single actionable statement or action of mine. IMO my on-wiki discourse has been rather measured.

I meant that you're a convenient target for this particular insanity.

I was quite careful this time around to not give them a target, or to snap at any one of a million outrageous claims. Shades of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy (T-C-L), but that Gorand guy was no Ludwigs2.

[Vigilant]

Jesus, what a whiny twat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =570909087

As a matter of basic principle, I will not involve myself in any project that embraces transphobia and hate speech in the way this project has by denying Chelsea Manning her self-identity. In nearly a decade of involvement with the project I have been frustrated with it, but I have never seen it actively embrace evil in the way it did today. May those who chose to embrace a policy of hatred and bigotry never experience anything as awful as what they have done. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Some nerds are arguing over what name to put on an online article.

This is not evil, you sanctimonious twat.

[DanMurphy]

Sue Gardner says crowdsourcing by mob doesn't work for making Wikipedia policy.

I do not intend to read any of that shriek-fest.

[Zoloft]

Outside-the-box idea:
Block-indef anyone who ragequits or calls Wikipedia editors who are trying to get a handle on an edgy topic transphobic.
Flip the page title.
Block-indef anyone who ragequits or says actual transphobic crap.
Start a reasonable discussion.
Don't let the blocked editors return.

Oh, and my opinion? By Wikipedia's own rules the article is supposed to follow verifiable secondary sources. So mix and match. The lead should reflect a majority of what major media uses as gender pronoun.

That's Wikipedia's rules. Follow, not lead.

If I'm blogging, I'd say 'she.'

[Vigilant]

Sue Gardner says crowdsourcing by mob doesn't work for making Wikipedia policy.

I do not intend to read any of that shriek-fest.

But, you'll miss all of the fun!

[Angela Kennedy]

Silver Seren is watching (bolding mine). Please stop being so transparently transphobic. This means you Tarc and Carrite.

The fact that Manning's announcement was going to cause a significant amount of conflict on Wikipedia was plainly obvious. We have a lot of varying views here and in situations like these, the differences in opinion are going to come to the forefront strongly.

What I did not expect was to see such a violent division on Wikipediocracy. This is one of the more stark divisions i've ever seen happen. I'm saving the whole conversation, obviously, since it's prime fodder to show the issues of WO to others (maybe this can lead to a news article on the site and we can go and put it into the WO article on how WO has several clear transphobics in its midst). I mean, Tarc and I have never really liked each other, but I certainly wouldn't have ever viewed him as being the type of person as he exposed himself to be in that discussion. Nor Carrite, for that matter, that was especially surprising.

And I certainly didn't expect you to take the stance of "mental illness". If you had meant that in the sense of something where the cure is sex reassignment surgery, as supported by the medical and psychological community, then that would make sense and follow. However, it is quite clear from your comment that you don't think that. In fact, it is quite clear that you think much more negative things. SilverserenC 10:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

To put my twopennethworth into this 'debate':

I'M surprised at the stark divisions here on this issue too

From a pragmatic point of view, all that the 'wikipedians' needed to do is to see how other famous transgendered people are referred to there (By the current gender adopted, invariably as far as I can see).

Then it becomes extremely easy to write up with the change of gender pronouns following an explanation of the situation. It's not difficult!

But what we're seeing on wikipedia is a prejudice against Manning, firstly (they don't want to respect her wishes) and a disgust engendered by the cognitive dissonance of those who don't approve of changing gender positioning - which is a social construction by the way - while sex (whether male, female, or something else genetically) is a natural phenomenon.

Then they get all upset when they are called out as transphobics.

Get your heads around the social construction of GENDER - and it becomes easier to cope with the boundary changes involved with gender reassignment processes (which take some time, by the way). Wikipedians will not have the luxury of waiting at the door to find out the exact moment Manning becomes a real lady by losing her manhood surgically (as this seems to be the only thing that might satisfy some of them- how very, disappointingly Freudian!)

It's known Manning was already in a process of reassigning her own gender as female. The desperation to keep her a guy as long as possible is most likely down to bigotry against her - for being 'gay', for embarrassing America, for wanting to be a - well ugh - one of those women things etc. etc. It's embarrassing to watch, and Sue Gardner's fence-sitting was even more embarrassing. It also shows how little Wikipedians know about the social construction of gender - the 'sum of all knowledge' comment just got even sillier.

[Angela Kennedy]

2. I don't doubt in the least that Bradley Manning seeks gender reassignment hormone therapy and surgery. Desiring something and describing that as an accomplished fact are quite different. Worse yet is the neo-Orwellian revision of biography, effectively backdating this pseudoreality to birth. It's really quite offensive, BLP-PC run amuck.

"backdating this pseudoreality to birth". Ah. I think I get it now. It just makes more sense (to me) to stick with one pronoun instead of using "he" in the past and "she" in the present/future. For me, consistently calling Manning "she" is not redefining who they were in the past.

Exactly.

[Zoloft]

If you're familiar with the ins and outs of a complex subject, that connects to hot-button issues such as sexuality and gender, of course to you the proper course is obvious.

But not everyone has the experience, or even the inclination, to follow a subject which is not in their known worldview.

People not familiar with transgender issues need to be educated, not called bigots.

Are there bigots among them? Of course!

But if you educate people, people move their opinions.

If you tag them with the label 'transphobic,' well, they will become one in solidarity with people who share their opinions. Including actual bigots and trolls. You can swell the ranks of the transphobic unnecessarily.

I'm not an expert on LGBT issues. I have gay relatives and friends. When I used to make a living setting up websites when the Web was young, I met for the first time some customers who were MtF. Web jobs are like others in that word-of-mouth gets you more work. I taught a number of activists and people who just wanted to tell their story how to set up their own sites (and moved their sites when ISPs would shut them down). I made some friends. I've seen people experience pain, doubt, and triumph in their transitions. Some died. I've seen violence against people in transition.

People need help to wrap their heads around ideas.

[Notvelty]

Sue Gardner says crowdsourcing by mob doesn't work for making Wikipedia policy.

I do not intend to read any of that shriek-fest.

For choosing this issue, rather than the countless child-protection issues that have previously arisen, to make a public statement, I find this woman to be despicable.

My own view? This matter requires a mature approach and considered resolution that wikipedia and wikimedia complete lack. It is a difficult issue that should not be left to shut-ins.

[Vigilant]

For even more hilarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brad ... tates_Army

Let's add some category fun to this bukkake fest.

Here's a thought: Indef anyone editing the page until the ARBCOM case is done.

[Cedric]

Just to explain the point, Sue Gardner seems to be blissfully unaware that the arbitration committee is constitutionally unable to define policy. This is spelled out here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _precedent

. . .

Again, that Gardner doesn't understand this, after seven years of running the Foundation, is breathtaking.

Breathtakingly stupid, I should say. Stupid not only for her utter ignorance of such a basic matter of Wikipedia governance after so many years at the head of the WMF, but mostly for her horning in on such contentious issue without bothering to educate herself on ArbCom's actual role, and doing it while she is on her way out the door.

Her statement is just more evidence that whatever focus she was able to muster was nearly always on the Foundation, herself, or her friends, and not on Wikipedia or the other projects. She presided over the absolutely huge bloat in the WMF budget and staffing levels, while at the same time Wikipedia has lost editors and continues to sink further into a dystopian abyss. Not that there was a whole lot she could have done to prevent Wikipedia's decline, given the WMF's circumscribed role in Wikipedia governance, but she largely failed to do the little she could have done.

As to the underlying issue, I will admit there is a lot I do not know about trans issues and it is a confusing area for me. I know enough, however, to say that Sue Gardner is about the last person we should seek or accept advice from on that matter.

[dogbiscuit]

Sue Gardner says crowdsourcing by mob doesn't work for making Wikipedia policy.

I do not intend to read any of that shriek-fest.

For choosing this issue, rather than the countless child-protection issues that have previously arisen, to make a public statement, I find this woman to be despicable.

My own view? This matter requires a mature approach and considered resolution that wikipedia and wikimedia complete lack. It is a difficult issue that should not be left to shut-ins.

Perhaps you didn't realise raising child protection issues is just trolling, debating sexuality is the core being of Wikipedia. Certainly appears to be Sue Gardner's view.

[The Devil's Advocate]

To put my twopennethworth into this 'debate':

I'M surprised at the stark divisions here on this issue too

From a pragmatic point of view, all that the 'wikipedians' needed to do is to see how other famous transgendered people are referred to there (By the current gender adopted, invariably as far as I can see).

Then it becomes extremely easy to write up with the change of gender pronouns following an explanation of the situation. It's not difficult!

But what we're seeing on wikipedia is a prejudice against Manning, firstly (they don't want to respect her wishes) and a disgust engendered by the cognitive dissonance of those who don't approve of changing gender positioning - which is a social construction by the way - while sex (whether male, female, or something else genetically) is a natural phenomenon.

Then they get all upset when they are called out as transphobics.

Get your heads around the social construction of GENDER - and it becomes easier to cope with the boundary changes involved with gender reassignment processes (which take some time, by the way). Wikipedians will not have the luxury of waiting at the door to find out the exact moment Manning becomes a real lady by losing her manhood surgically (as this seems to be the only thing that might satisfy some of them- how very, disappointingly Freudian!)

It's known Manning was already in a process of reassigning her own gender as female. The desperation to keep her a guy as long as possible is most likely down to bigotry against her - for being 'gay', for embarrassing America, for wanting to be a - well ugh - one of those women things etc. etc. It's embarrassing to watch, and Sue Gardner's fence-sitting was even more embarrassing. It also shows how little Wikipedians know about the social construction of gender - the 'sum of all knowledge' comment just got even sillier.

Obviously some despise Manning for his leaking of classified information, but I actually am very much of the opposite opinion regarding that as I would fully support him escaping U.S. jurisdiction and being given asylum in some foreign country like Snowden. Also, I know about the research into transgenderism and the position that gender is a social construct. However, the latter view is a fairly new ideological construct invented by activists that oversimplifies a complex issue and makes a deeply misguided association of physical sex with the actual constructs of "masculinity" and "femininity" in society. It is a trend among certain progressive academics to try and resolve a social issue by rejecting certain biological realities, while seeking to conjure up new ones with bad science. One does not need to trivialize or deny biological sex in order to promote gender equality and reject gender conformity. Understanding the reality of biological sex is far more conducive to that than acting as though it is some impediment one must overcome.

[Tarc]

For me, consistently calling Manning "she" is not redefining who they were in the past.

Exactly.

You're both a couple fries short of a Happy Meal if you think that. Jesus...

[Tarc]

For even more hilarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brad ... tates_Army

Let's add some category fun to this bukkake fest.

Here's a thought: Indef anyone editing the page until the ARBCOM case is done.

Well ,as I pointed out over there, this is a different matter altogether, since as far as the Army is concerned there is no "Chelsea Manning" in the United States Army. The brig at Ft. Leavenworth is for men only, for starters. Female military convicts go to a Naval detention facility in Miramar, San Diego. Mail sent to "Chelsea Manning" will be bounced back as well.

[Mancunium]

Edited at the request of Tarc.

[Tarc]

News of the abomination for you, Tarc:

Abomination? Is Michael Moore making another film or something?

Chelsea Manning’s Prison
The New Yorker, 30 August 2013 link

Already read the the other day, actually. All it is is;

“The Army does not provide hormone therapy or sex reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder,” Kimberly Lewis, a spokeswoman for Fort Leavenworth, told NBC News.

Followed by a whinge as to why that's so unfair. Boo-hoo, Manning didn't sign up for a fucking sewing circle here. It's the Army.

Chelsea Manning Making Friends in Prison: Lawyer
The leaker spoke to her attorney for the first time since entering Fort Leavenworth
TIME, 30 August 2013 link

Chelsea Manning is 'doing well' in military prison, her lawyer says
Manning undergoing indoctrination process at Fort Leavenworth where she's made 'several friends who accept her for who she is'
The Guardian, 29 August 2013 link

Those are two sources writing about the same exact thing, and really nothing of import. "I made friends in prison today" doesn't exactly have the same meaning as little Bobby home from his first day of kindergarten talking about the boy he shared a chocolate milk with, I'm afraid.

In the future, if you're going to address me in a post then at least make it something worthwhile & interesting, k?

[Moonage Daydream]

For me, consistently calling Manning "she" is not redefining who they were in the past.

Exactly.

You're both a couple fries short of a Happy Meal if you think that. Jesus...

You think changing a name or pronoun retroactively changes a 5 year old Bradley Manning into a little girl? I don't. They were what they were no matter what we call them. And they are what they are no matter what we call them. I'm done.

[Mancunium]

I'm done feeding the troll.

[Hersch]

Wikipedians will not have the luxury of waiting at the door to find out the exact moment Manning becomes a real lady by losing her manhood surgically

From what I am heard, it takes a little more than just that: