“It is the policy of the Bureau of Prisons to maintain the transsexual inmate at the level of change existing upon admission to the Bureau. Should responsible medical staff determine that either progressive or regressive treatment changes are indicated, these changes must be approved by the [Bureau of Prisons] Medical Director prior to implementation. The use of hormones to maintain secondary sexual characteristics may be continued at approximately the same levels as prior to incarceration, but such use must be approved by the Medical Director.”
[Erick] Erickson was by no means the lone conservative media personality to respond so nastily to the news. (See other examples here, here, here, here, and here). But he was the person to most embrace the Haterade. Erickson was heavily criticized earlier this year for basically saying the idea of a male breadwinner is science, so this stuff is relatively toned down by comparison.
What’s interesting here, though, is that as Americans become more and more tolerant of the idea of LGBT equality, including marriage equality, transgender people are starting to become one of the last “safer” targets for right-wing vilification. You can see this in California, where conservatives are gearing up to try to repeal a recently passed law that recognizes transgender students in public schools and allows them to choose the bathrooms and locker rooms that they identify with. Even in deep-blue California, 46 percent of the state’s residents opposed the law to 43 percent who supported it in a recent poll. If the right-wing groups that are trying to repeal the law get their voter measure on the ballot for next year’s elections, expect that the California transgender referendum could become the new national culture war issue du jour in 2014.
I understand that my actions violated the law, and I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States. It was never my intention to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others.
If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society. I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal.
Most of SLDN’s transgender clients have been discharged honorably, though other than honorable or dishonorable discharges may be possible depending on the case (e.g., violations of conduct regulations). Discharged veterans seeking to upgrade their discharge characterization or to change their narrative reason for discharge may contact SLDN for assistance.
* I am pretty sure you’re wrong, and that’s what matters: my opinion about it. When I refer to a trans woman as “he” or a trans man as “she,” I will anger and sadden and maybe frighten any trans people in my audience, but that’s nothing next to making sure people know what I think. Even though what I think is hardly original to me, or new to you, what matters is that you know it is my idea, which is mine, and I own it.
Convenient timing. I think the kid is stressed out. He apologized profusely for doing the leak in the first place, so we can see that his head-space is already compromised. Military doctors aren't likely cut out to accurately identify GID and, really, a wig and some lipstick and some feminine traits don't make you a female. I'm a full supporter of transgender individuals and necessary transitions but this kid.. he's kinda losing it. When I watched that statement he made to the court, I knew it nothing good would come from him again. Those people broke him, the poor soul, and he's desperate for an outlet.
I don't know him personally but this is, of course, my opinion. Again, I'm all about trans-rights but this smacks of "freak out mode."
I will refer to manning in whatever way I see fit. Given that I work directly with the trans-community, I see no need to justify my referring to him as a male. He's a male and if he wants someone to pay for his transition, he should get a series of private donors. No self-respecting trans would send a photo of herself looking disheveled as an announcement to superiors. If she wants to be a "she," it's more than hormones and a wig. Get an external-psych to do an assessment, not military doctors who are trained to recognize anything not Standard as a debilitating issue. Soldier says he wants to be a woman and he's obv a life-long trans. It doesn't work that way. He's just a person, not an incredible human who's to be elevated to a pedestal. Shoot, my girl was right: call me Stewart Beldofilous and I want to scratch my crotch with a gun while holding a beer and don't you dare comment on my vagina because it'll soon be gone! *sarcasticpenguin*
I've known a few people who have tested out names at Starbucks to see what 'fits' (as much as a name on a coffee cup fits), so I suppose that's a recurring theme.
Discussions of bias-free language—language that is neither sexist nor suggestive of other conscious or subconscious prejudices—have a way of descending quickly into politics. But there is a way to avoid the political quagmire: if we focus solely on maintaining credibility with a wide readership, the argument for eliminating bias from published works becomes much simpler. Biased language that is not central to the meaning of a work distracts readers, and in their eyes the work is less credible. [...]
Consider the issue of gender-neutral language. On the one hand, it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun (he in reference to no one in particular). On the other hand, it is unacceptable to a great many readers (often different readers) either to resort to nontraditional gimmicks to avoid the generic masculine (by using he/she or s/he, for example) or to use they as a kind of singular pronoun. Either way, credibility is lost with some readers.
Brave woman. I wish I was as strong as she is.
This article has a couple of interesting quotes:
"Transgender women don't go through it just like that,” she said outside the LGBT Community Center in Chelsea. “First you got to see a counselor, and then hormone treatments.”
I know that some might prefer that the change be made without comment, and readers simply be expected to figure it out for themselves. I think it’s worth recognizing that there’s a period when it makes sense for publications to explain Manning’s transition, and their own change in style, to their readers, and that there are real opportunities for good explanatory journalism in that explanation. This is a reasonable matter of editorial clarity, at least for an intermediate period. Not everyone is following the leaks story with the same level of attention, and it’s worth making clear to readers that the person who once was Bradley Manning now is Chelsea Manning to preserve the continuity of the story for those in the audience who didn’t catch her announcement. There’s no reason to penalize readers who are getting up to speed now for not having been on the story with the same ferocity as the most dedicated from day one.
And it’s also an opportunity to educate those same readers about the process of transitioning, and the fact that Manning will be incarcerated in a facility for men rather than with other women and denied hormone treatment will imprisoned, two practices that are widespread in the American prison system. I understand that it may feel condescending to some in the audience to include these basic explanations and facts in stories about Private Manning, but the reality is that a quarter of Americans don’t report understanding what it means to be transgender. Offering clear, respectful explanations is a service both to those Americans, and to the families, friends, and neighbors whose lives they might better comprehend as a result. The interests of transgender people and those still unfamiliar with them are the same in this case, or at least they ought to be, when practicing thoughtful journalism.
Susan Wessling, the deputy editor who supervises The Times’s copy editors, told me that there are two important considerations. “We want to respect the preferences of the subject,” she said, “and we want to provide clarity for readers.”
Toward that end, she said, “We’ll probably use more words than less.” In other words, The Times will explain the change in stories.
“We can’t just spring a new name and a new pronoun” on readers with no explanation, she said. She noted the importance in the stylebook entry of the words “unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent,” which certainly applies here.
An article on The Times’s Web site on Thursday morning on the gender issue continued to use the masculine pronoun and courtesy title. That, said the associate managing editor Philip B. Corbett, will evolve over time.
« Older Lead programmer John Carmack is clearly the main r... | Five Fun Things to do with Dry... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt