Slashdot Mirror
Assange Agrees to US Prison If Obama Pardons Chelsea Manning (theverge.com)
"If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to U.S. prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness," Wikileaks announced on Twitter Thursday. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes The Verge:
WikiLeaks' statement was released one day before a Swedish appeals court decided to maintain a warrant for Assange's arrest over a 2010 rape charge. Assange has said that extradition to Sweden would lead to his eventual extradition to the US, where he could face charges related to WikiLeaks' publication of secret government documents... Assange has been living in political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012...
Chelsea Manning, a former US Army private, was convicted in 2013 for providing a trove of documents and videos to WikiLeaks, and is currently serving a 35-year sentence at the US Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas. She was hospitalized after a reported suicide attempt in July, and this month went on a hunger strike to seek treatment for her gender dysphoria. Manning ended her hunger strike this week after the military agreed to allow her to have gender reassignment surgery. She still faces indefinite solitary confinement due to administrative charges related to her suicide attempt.
The tweet also included a link to a letter from Assange's attorney, Barry Pollack, calling on the Justice Department to be more transparent about its investigation into WikiLeaks -- and citing the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information. "Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent [and] noted that responsible prosecutors consider the context of a person's actions... Criminal prosecution is appropriate only when a person...was intending to aid enemies of the United States or was attempting to obstruct justice."
Chelsea Manning, a former US Army private, was convicted in 2013 for providing a trove of documents and videos to WikiLeaks, and is currently serving a 35-year sentence at the US Disciplinary Barracks in Leavenworth, Kansas. She was hospitalized after a reported suicide attempt in July, and this month went on a hunger strike to seek treatment for her gender dysphoria. Manning ended her hunger strike this week after the military agreed to allow her to have gender reassignment surgery. She still faces indefinite solitary confinement due to administrative charges related to her suicide attempt.
The tweet also included a link to a letter from Assange's attorney, Barry Pollack, calling on the Justice Department to be more transparent about its investigation into WikiLeaks -- and citing the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information. "Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent [and] noted that responsible prosecutors consider the context of a person's actions... Criminal prosecution is appropriate only when a person...was intending to aid enemies of the United States or was attempting to obstruct justice."
minutes! Assange suffers attention deficient!
Assange knows that will never happen. Obama has trouble even treating Manning like a normal human being.
-- Cheers!
I don't think the US even wants Assange? Or am I wrong? It seems the only place where this notion comes from is Assange himself.
Back when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, there was an actual chance at fairness if you went to court, which is why Ellsberg is not in jail for the rest of his life.
Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.
Assange would do well to stay where he is, even if it feels confining. Because he would be disappeared like Chelsea They would bury him so deep in the system that death would be preferable.
--
BMOME-163B
I'm surprised that he chose Manning and not Snowden.
(2) Snowden will go to prison.
(3) Manning will commit suicide.
(4) Twilight Zone ending.
He is a fugitive from raping two women in Sweden, volunteering to go to jail in the US as long as the US lets go of someone who was in the military and admits releasing lots of military secrets?
Is this offer serious? To me it comes off as laughably weird. Why not volunteer to go to French jail if they pardon Carlos the Jackal?
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Back when Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers, there was an actual chance at fairness if you went to court, which is why Ellsberg is not in jail for the rest of his life.
I think the only reason Ellsberg didn't go to jail is because the government completely bungled the investigation and engaged in clearly illegal actions while investigating the case. Had they been more restrained they might very well have gotten a conviction.
Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.
Sadly you might be correct.
It does not matter where I personally stand on any of this politically. That is torture and the authorities backing and authorizing it know it.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
This is completely bizarre. Assange is not currently wanted in the US. There is no indictment against him, there isn't a warrant for his arrest, and there is no request for extradition. I'm not sure how he can "agree to go to prison" when he hasn't been charged with a crime. The U.S. doesn't actually let people go to prison just because they want to; they have to be found guilty of a crime.
Assange is wanted in Sweden (although so far he's only wanted for questioning.)
Assange is wanted in Britain-- for jumping bail.
But he's not wanted for a crime in the U.S. He could agree to go to prison in Sweden or Britain-- why doesn't he volunteer to do that?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
a. alex trebek just go away forever
b. alex trebek get head transplant
c. alex trebek spontaneous combust from public
any of these and I go away to putin prison.
alex trebek my friend along with misery
Do you fuckers think he'd have turned into a "woman" if he wasn't being abused and tortured in prison? Think about it.
Everything done for show.
As if... Asswage thinks he can dictate terms to the US Government? Snowbuddy also thinks the same.
Asswage can just head over to Moscow and play ball with Putin if he wants something different than facing justice.
Not only is he an alleged rapist but also should be charged with espionage and locked up for the rest of his life.
And Snowbuddy can come back and face justice. His current tactic of negotiating with release of state secrets to the public isn't going to work. He's already traded his cache to Putin and may look forward to a long, snowy future in lovely Russia. It's really a shame US Government snipers haven't got him yet, but he's making it very difficult to to stay alive.
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."
Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary
A Leavenworth judge disagrees with you. Her legal name has been Chelsea Elizabeth Manning since 2014. Do try to keep up. Does it bother you that much that someone else can take control of their life? This sort of thing has been going on since the early 20th century. Time to get over it, don't you think? Or did you think this was the Flat Earth Society Discussion Group / Luddite Support Forum?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He's trying to get himself attention, and succeeding it would seem as here's a story on it.
Assange has acted rather oddly throughout this whole thing, at least if you take his rhetoric at face value. He happily went to Sweden and spent time there until these allegation came up, at which time he went to the UK. He then claimed that the reason was that the charges were BS and Sweden would just hand him over to the US because they were after him as soon as he went back. That of course makes one questions:
1) Why would he go to Sweden in the first place, if he knew it was a country that would hand him over to the US extra judicially?
2) Why would he flee to the UK and feel safe there, a country with such a special relationship with the US it is literally called the "special relationship"?
He then fought the extradition to Sweden in the UK courts and lost. They were ruling just on the validity of the extradition request, not on the validity of the charge behind it. He then fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, claiming that he'd be handed over to the US if he went to Sweden.
So there we are today. Now near as I know, the US has not sought his arrest. While they don't like him, it doesn't look like he's broken US law. Publishing classified US information isn't a crime if you weren't the one who had access to it. So a guy who has a security clearance and gets information and gives it to a paper, he's breaking the law. However the paper that then publishes it is not.
Now maybe he really does know something most don't, but it seems more likely this is just him trying to get in the news. He knows this is an empty offer since the US wouldn't agree to it as they don't have a valid charge to bring against him. This is all between him and Sweden and now him and the UK (even if Sweden dropped the charges, he still broke UK law be fleeing his bail). The US isn't involved.
Obviously you do - you not only read the story, but you also commented on it. Most people who attack trans-people are latent homosexuals. As Fred Flintstone said, you go have yourself a gay old time. You'll feel better out of the closet. Yabba-daba-doo!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Making himself the hero, while deflecting from the fact that he is holed up in the embassy because he is wanted for sexual misconduct in Sweden.
He is not a fugitive from rape, he is "wanted" for questioning regarding allegations of rape which were answered long ago. Read the case and it becomes clear that the case most likely a setup for what Assange claims. "To give the US the ability to extradite him for charges of espionage, and dozens of other charges that will land him in jail for life." You should really either find facts before speaking or be more cautious with your words. He was never put on trial, never convicted of a crime, and to give you a shortcut both women are ex-girlfriends who had consensual sex with him frequently long before any allegation. Allegations came out much later. Assange has offered to answer questions and face inquiry in safe space and that has been refused. Sweden has refused to guarantee him amnesty from extradition if he came in for questioning. You can dislike him for a whole lot of reasons, but making false accusations makes you worse than him releasing too much information.
There is a history here in the US of false rape allegations for political agendas. Duke got us Title 9, UNLV and at least a dozen other high profile allegations were completely fabricated yet hyped to continue to divide the country and used for political gain by our Progressive left. You don't have to like facts, but don't ignore the facts. There are plenty of articles and legal experts who defend Assange, and if you understand the media collusion with politics you will see why they are hidden from public view on your favorite TV show.
Your question can simply be answered as "no", but I think it's a good bluff. If the US accepts it pretty much demonstrates that the charges were fabricated and Sweden was colluding with the US to arrest someone they dislike.
Your second question demonstrates complete ignorance, or perhaps it was just buffoonery. France is not in the legal equation, at all.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Does it bother you that much that someone else can take control of their life?
How to take control of your life, the Manning way:
1. Commit a crime against your entire nation.
2. Go to prison, where they keep you confined and tell you when to sleep, eat, piss, etc.
3. Enjoy having basically no control over your life!
As far as I'm aware, SRS means sex reassignment surgery and GRS is GENITAL assignment surgery. Gender (at least in relation to the discussion) is a psychological construct. In order for a gender assignment you would need a lobotomy.
Minor nit-pick.
is as far as the government is concerned; Manning already got off light. There were many that wanted it executed; the same way the people "in power" don't want Snowden in jail; but want him dead on a slab.
Snowden will never come home, Assange will have to either stay where he is or face prison elsewhere, and Manning will likely never see the outside of a prison cell. As far as a lot of people are concerned; they want all three dead.
And that's not just within the US.
Did he *actually* rape in Sweden?
Or was this some tarnishing manipulation created to destroy his credibility and/or extradite him by any cost ?
> Director Comey made it clear his conclusion was based on the necessity of proving criminal intent
And THIS is what happens when the law is bent for the worst lawbreakers. Despite the law clearly stating "criminal intent" was NOT required to be shown by the prosecution, having made one public exception to the law now other people convicted under the ORIGINAL standard now have grounds for negotiation or appeal. And since these people have outed Obama in an embarrassing manner several times, show of hands: which way will Obama rule? I bet all of a sudden the ORIGINAL wording of the statute will suddenly become critical to the WikiLeaks case. 'Cause, that's the kind of law-rewriting bastard that he is..
Give Manning a rusty spoon as the promise of a pardon if 'her' DIY sex change is successful.
That's what is really going on. When Obama ends his term - unless a state of emergency is called - he will have a pardon list.
The pardon list often makes the press, but often not major news. This time a lot of people will be looking at who gets pardoned, and it is the hypocrisy that will be analysed.
So, it will be much harder for Obama to make his pardon list, which in a way weakens the establishment's power.
It is harder to get people to do dirty jobs, when the pardon list goes under scrutiny.
Actually Obama illegally traded terrorists to get Manning returned to the US and free of his fellow terrorists. I see no reason to think that Obama wouldn't also pardon Manning for his high crimes, including desertion and possibly treason. It is the rest of America that don't want to see this traitor pardoned, so it seems likely that Obama would do it even without an Asange incentive. Obama might even give it a metal.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Assange, the citizens of this country don't even want Manning pardoned. Many of us want Snowden pardoned, but other than transgender freaks no one seems to have sympathy for Manning. On the other hand, you've been promising to release important information about Clinton. Why distract attention from that with this stunt?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Way to miss the point. The topic we are both replying to is "Re: You Mispelled (sic) "Bradley Manning""
Chelsea Manning has taken control of that aspect of her life. Otherwise her legal name would still be Bradley Manning.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And Manning should have got sentenced to death for treason.
Way to miss the forest for one tree. "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
Isn't the point to try to have a reasonably good life and be happy? It's a pretty small consolation that you're finally the gender you want when you're rotting away in a cage. Because you stupidly screwed up everything else with your life.
Does it bother you that much that someone else can take control of their life?
Sure, right. He is absolutely controlling his life right now.
There is no Chelsea Manning. There is a gay male named Bradley Manning and he was born with a penis. Assange is a lying megalomaniacal rapist who is in collusion with the Russians. He's made his bed. Now he can lay in it with Bradley and the two can spoon each other while yanking it to thoughts of Edward Snowden in a drag.
He is not accused of raping anyone. Duh. He is accused of having sex without a condom.
Given the consent to entering her body was giving conditionally upon the use of a condom, the subsequent unprotected intercourse was non-consensual. Duh.
Nobody cares. Do you keep up with what Snoop Dog is calling himself every week? Is it Snoop Lion still? What about Prince? Or whenever streets or a short stretch of freeway around you get "officially" named after a dead guy? What about a University of library that renames buildings and wings after whatever cocksplash donates a lot of money each year? Have you ever asked your dog what his or her gender preference is? How dare you think you can choose his or her name! And how dare you think "his" or "her" are the only pronouns possible!!
People refer to you as what they know you as. They often know you as what they perceive you as, either from a first impression, actually knowing you as such in the past, or seeing you as such in the present. There's no reason for the world to actively try to change their perception of each individual to make you feel better, regardless of if that involves your name, your gender, or the aroma of your farts.
Assange has lost any credibility he might have once had. Its all about his little ego now. From his personal war on Clinton to his working hand in hand with the Russian banana republic thugs. He publishes social security numbers, cc numbers and anything that will get his name in the medial. He's a disgusting troll.
That's pretty much it. It would be the same if you went to a clinic for a prostate exam and found out that the guy with his finger up your ass wasn't a doctor, but an impostor. You didn't consent to being fondled by someone who wasn't a doctor, even though they could argue that you consented when they asked you to "assume the position" so they can examine you. Doesn't change the fact that they are guilty of sexual assault on your person.
Ditto for someone who lies and tells you they don't have AIDS, or who knows they have it and don't inform you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's a pretty small consolation that you're finally the gender you want when you're rotting away in a cage
To a transsexual, it might seem worth it rather than being a prisoner in the wrong-gendered body. Besides, the knowledge that you did the right thing by blowing the whistle on illegal government activities is better than the guilt of being too chicken-sh*t to do something when you had a chance.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Once it's been legally changed, not addressing someone with their real name is insulting. It's like back in the days when women took their husband's last name. Referring to them as Miss #OldLastName# even after they correct you is just wrong.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Manning handed out classified info while wearing the uniform of the US Military. He deserves a firing squad. He was not just an average citizen, nor a journalist, he voluntarily joined the military, took an oath, and submitted himself to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is not the same as civilian law.
Assange is a foreign national civilian, and arguably a journalist. I'm not happy that he published the material, but I'm not aware that he violated any US laws while in US jurisdiction. His actions put him on par with the newspapers that published the Pentagon Papers, and indeed even the newspapers that have reported on the materials he posted.
Oh, and Manning is a MALE. News outlets that report on people identifying them by a gender they do not actually have are proving they cannot be trusted to honestly report on even the most basic facts. Manning is genetically and physically male. He can have a surgeon mangle his private parts and shove silicon bags into his chest, and pump himself full of the wrong hormones, but he will still be genetically male and will NEVER be fully functionally female. If HE thinks HE is anything else then HE has a mental issue similar to that of a skinny teenage girl who is convinced she is fat. If you think you are something other than what you physically are, society has always held that you have a mental disorder. This has only recently been abandoned, but only for sex. Society is abusing you if it coddles you in your delusion. We do not do this great harm to skinny teenage girls who are dismorphic and believe themselves fat, encouraging them to give-in to their delusions and starve themselves. We do not do that to people we care about. Why do some do it to the gender confused? Is it possible the ones who claim to care the most are actually the ones encouraging them to harm themselves? The stats are not good for the long-term results of encouraging this stuff, and it's not "hateful" to point out this truth.
Bartering one criminal for another is wrong. Both deserve to be punished with prison sentences. Assange needs to face a court hearing to determine his crimes.
You assert the laugably idiotic claim that people who oppose homosexuality are probably closeted gays, or that people who are opposed to the culture embracing the delusions of the "trans community" are latent homosexuals. It's stupid, dishonest, old, and at its base it expresses the self-hatred of the accuser. It seems to never enter your pea-sized brain that people could possibly just believe that these things are wrong, are unhealthy for individuals, and are corrosive to the culture. You're so stuck on sexual deviancy that you cannot see people who disagree with you in other than sexually deviant terms. That's very sad.
If YOU are asserting that a critic of "trans-people" is bad and probably a latent homosexual, then you are BY DEFINITION asserting that you also believe homosexuality to be a bad thing. You clearly do not see homosexuality as a good thing, or you would not fling the accusation at your opponent. Think about it you self-denying homophobe.
Perhaps YOU oppose people opposed to the coddling of sexual confusion because you too are secretly opposed to the coddling of sexual confusion?
You see? It's a stupid brain-dead deflection tactic that can go both ways and to an infinite depth. Have you ever seen The Pricess Bride and the "Iocane powder" scene?
She will send to Obama the dead meat of Chelsea Manning.
Obama will dine on the meat of Chelsea Manning, pausing to take a flank steak and wrap it around his penis and masturbate, then eat the flank with his sperm as sauce.
Eat Well Hillery and Obama
I realize my opinion bothers you, but instead of your insistence on censorship why not provide reasonable arguments against people you censor? Feckless.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
They need to release her and award her a Medal.
I hope more people have the guts to take on this rampant corruption.
This is why we need to protect the whistle blowers.
These people need to be able to speak.
So now the military puts suicide attempt people in isolation. I am absolutely certain that that will ensure that such a person will not commit suicide in the future. It must follow the logic that a boring dingy cell can somehow make a violator a better citizen.
Why are you referring to him as "she"?
Why is it that the issue of surgery has come up only after he's in a position to get tax payers to pay for it? Why didn't he do it before committing a crime?
Why are you referring to her as "him"?
Oh dear Goddess, you're not a man-hating lesbian separatist radfem are you? ... No of course not, it's just the horseshoe effect.
Believe it or not, US courts have already ruled that an usolicited finger in the anus is not a crime.
Manning's reason for leaking things was literally "muh dysphoria made me do it". Assange did it because the public had the right to know. Lock up Manning, pardon Assange.
If your identity problems are so severe you leak state secrets in a fit of triggering, you need to be put in a mental asylum for your own safety. It sets a bad precedent and a bad example. Do you really want employers thinking "Well if Chelsea Manning leaks state secrets because she's a transwoman, we better not hire transpeople altogether", because they think similar things about ethnic minorities even if the guy is cleaner than bleach.
It is a man. If it doesn't want to be a he, and doesn't qualify as a she (born with penis), it is an it.
Except that he didn't blow the whistle on anything. No criminal activities where revealed.
He has committed no crime in the US, and so the US cannot imprison him - not even on behalf of Sweden should he be convicted there. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property in the United States without having done something under the jurisdiction of her laws to deserve it.
Wow the CIA has really screwed up that privates mind. Wow, just wow, what are they doing to that guy to make him (supposedly)demand a sex change with 35 years in prison ahead of him? hmm.... it all smells
yup - time to take control of his life. in jail.
where he belongs
since he's a traitor.
So a mediocre coder and [alleged] rapist can sit at the bargaining table with the president of the United States over a military matter which involving a service woman (who swore an oath of allegiance to the USA) compromising and/or providing potential intelligence to global adversaries and terrorists? Perhaps Assange is nerding out with too many role playing games during his isolation.
Because women typically face lighter sentences than men do.
It is also part of a mental anguish plea: "He was never comfortable with himself and tried many different things. He went into the armed forces, but that didn't help. He followed Assange's advice, but that didn't help. While recovering from an attempted suicide, she realized the problem was, and always had been, that she was living in the wrong body."
If YOU are asserting that a critic of "trans-people" is bad and probably a latent homosexual, then you are BY DEFINITION asserting that you also believe homosexuality to be a bad thing.
Non sequitur.
Barbara is alluding to the fact that folks who are suppressing something as fundamental as their sexuality tend to act out on it in other ways--generally, by attacking anyone displaying the trait they're denying in themselves.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And how do you know it was really a suicide attempt?
There are plenty of "suicides" which were really not suicides but murders.
Believe it or not, US courts have already ruled that an usolicited finger in the anus is not a crime.
They've also ruled many times that any unwanted penetration, successful or not, with a body part or an inanimate object, is a crime.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Manning started transitioning back in 2000. That's well before this mess started. He abandoned it after being treated like shit, same as many others do when confronted with jerks and assholes harassing them on a daily basis. Now she is going forward with it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The army refused to release the video that became known as "Collateral Damage", claiming that they probably didn't even have it. Manning said otherwise. Killing reporters and civilians indiscriminately is criminal even in the military.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Believe it or not, US courts have already ruled that an usolicited finger in the anus is not a crime.
Hence why people join the TSA, so they can get all their finger poking jollies.
Not at all - I'm asserting that it's the people who virulently oppose homosexuality / lesbianism /transsexuality who believe it's a bad thing that they secretly have similar yearnings. If they weren't so hung up about their own inner sexuality, they wouldn't be so eager to show the world that they aren't by attacking others. "He can't be gay. Look at how much he hates gays." Psychiatrists have testified to this as part of the motivation in killings of gays and trans.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Searched for this comment specifically. Was not disappointed.
That is all.
I would be sympathetic with Manning except instead of releasing only evidence of military wrong doing, Manning released everything possible knowing what the consequences would be.
The outcome and Manning's position are exactly as expected no matter who is in the Oval Office.
Manning was serving in a war zone and lying about the prosecution of a war is an important part of waging war. Secrets, even dirty secrets, are a part of war. Killing civilians (accidentally) and covering it up are part of war... which is one of the reasons war is hell. Controlling the flow of information is part of war. The truth is the first casualty of war. That people were being killed and someone sitting back at camp got upset about it doesn't give them reason to betray their fellow soldiers.
That is far different than revelations about a dragnet spying program targeted at every single civilian here in the US and abroad. That is a clear and present danger to the US constitution. That is raising an alarm about an enemy within. If the programs had targeted just the terrorists or the enemy or even just foreign militaries and governments that would be different. But the way the spying program was constructed it had pretty much nothing to do with the war and everything to do with just about everything and every one and was a clear violation of our constitution. The people perpetrating those programs made themselves the enemy.
Even looking at Daniel Ellsberg. What he did was to release his classified report on the war efforts in Vietnam during the war. It was in opposition to the war. During the war. There was a clear case to be made that it provided aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war and it provided nothing more than a further demoralizing effect without any public interest that could have been derived from already open source information.
Assange is wrong to even offer this. State justice usually doesn't like dealing one charge or accused/convicted against another. This is mostly done in international espionage with countries so diametrically opposed, there is no other way of getting what each side wants.
And that's the other problem. An accused making such an offer, would probably offend a prosecutor for treading on their turf. Not to mention that there would be suspicion that the accused would somehow benefit from the offer. And even if there was no clear benefit to the accused, there would be a huge image problem for the justice system, in that it could be represented as corruption, stupidity, or manipulation of the justice system. The justice system could deny this of course but official denials simply feed the conspiracy theorists, trolls and those opposed to the system for any reason.
The army refused to release the video that became known as "Collateral Damage", claiming that they probably didn't even have it. Manning said otherwise. Killing reporters and civilians indiscriminately is criminal even in the military.
Except Manning released thousands of documents unrelated to those activities, so even if the Collateral Damage video did cover his ass, (And was a he at that time), the thousands of other unrelated documents were more than enough to convict.
Shooting a bank robber doesn't give license to shoot everybody else in the bank.
Manning was enlisted in the military and falls under the rulings of the UCMJ, period. How that sentence is carried out is up to the military. And changing ones gender is not a necessary medical procedure and never should have happened while incarcerated.
I respect what Snowden did, though I do not agree on a pardon for him either. I'm a purist, you do something for a cause you stand your ground and take what is coming to you. You do not run if you want your act to mean anything other than looking like you want the attention.
Assange is a child having a tantrum, always has been. He seeks only fame and his cause is hollow. He cherry picks the releases to smear governments that he does not agree with.
The current US presidential candidates clearly demonstrate that the US government has zero concern for its citizens and will cater to industry over citizenry, so getting anyone in government to agree on pardoning anyone is a moot point. Yes the US government is corrupt, but unless you were living under a rock you already knew this. Sometimes doing things in a perceived illegal manner is how one gets change, but there are more constructive ways to get things done. In another 50-100 years these people won't be remembered. Stand on soap boxes preaching about the evils of torture all you want, the simple fact is, it is going to happen and solitary is not torture. If the jailers didn't put someone in solitary that attempted suicide you shout about the lack of compassion there as well.
Again, if you want to effect change, stand by your conviction and take the punishment otherwise your crusade is a pointless endeavor.
Are you arguing that Manning is already naturally physically female but missing ovaries? If so, why does he need a taxpayer-provided sex change op?
Are you arguing that there has suddenly been a huge uptick in rare genetic disorders that accounts for all the modern gender-confused?
The condition clearly does not apply to Manning, he has male parts and male genetics and wants theparts replaced with phoney female parts - in effect turing himself INTO a victim of a man-made form of Swyer.
There are several problems with your approach:
1. The condition you are referring to is a very rare condition DEFECT. Society should not be defining normality based on rare defects. Should we define murder as a normal and acceptable thing becase there are a few defective people who feel compelled to murder?
2. People born with medical defects deserve the sympathy of all and should be helped to minimize the defect if they choose. Most people with Swyer Syndrome are totally structurally female except for the missing ovaries and non-functional testes, and the best correction is generally hormones. They can live normal lives as females with mis-matched chromosomes and can even be pregnant and give birth using donated embryos. There are people born with worse sex/gender related defects for whom far less happy outcomes are possible. Many humans have severe non-sex defects which also cannot be properly solved with a surgeon's tools. To always be wrapping people like Manning in the cloak of people with actual medical problems does a great disservice to the actual victims of actual genetic abnormalities. You are using decent people born with genetic abnormalities as camouflage for kinky or disturbed people. Rather than supporting those who suffer from the real defects, you taint them by equating their actual conditions with people who are just plain warped. Stop doing it.
3. This is just as twisted as equating sexual orientation with race. You people may THINK you are lifting-up people with sexual issues by trying to gang them onto the long-overdue destruction of racism. You are using decent people born with various skin shades/colors as camouflage for kinky or disturbed people. You have actually reinforced a vile old racist stereotype that being black has something to do with sexual misconduct. Stop doing it.
The rest of the docs were just collateral damage :-) If the military can use that excuse, so can Manning.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He'll always be Bradley to me.
And I'm sure that neither her, nor her medical specialists, nor the media, nor the military, nor the legal system, nor the department of motor vehicles (if she gets out), nor anyone else whose opinion counts will give a damn.
Take a look around you - the major media have no problem with it. Just a few bible-thumpers and their bs websites.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So it would be rather late to go "Damn, I shouldn't have gone to the UK" when the prosecutor who is married to a US bigwig issued an illegal arrest warrant (because he's not wanted for arrest) AFTER he'd gone to the UK.
And, no, not even the women themselves think it was rape. One retracted her complaint entirely, but women aren't allowed to know if they've been raped. Someone else has to confirm it and insist that it happened.
And why Snowden doesn't want to go to Sweden is that if they're under suspicion, BUT NOT ARRESTED, they can be evicted from Sweden, and anyone making a request for his transfer to their jurisdiction to answer to a criminal matter (without any evidence being necessary) can get him. This is why they won't arrest him before he goes to Sweden. And in the UK, he's only allowed to be extradited under arrest and has the right to appeal in the UK, and the USA refuse to make a claim to arrest him yet, so the UK can't extradite him.
I'm not a bible thumper. I just don't want to participate in other people's delusions, even if everybody around me is doing it.
If everybody around you appears to have the same delusion, think carefully. In this case, you are insisting on referring to someone by a name that isn't her legal name, and which she doesn't want to be addressed by, and that's positively rude.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
He's delusional by his own standards, posting without using his legal first and last names on his birth certificate, wanting to be known just as "Raenex". And according to that same standard, that also makes almost everyone else except me and a few other posters such as yourself delusional as well. He really does tar with a broad brush.
He'd rather do that rather than acknowledge that Chelsea Manning is her legal name. He's delusional by his own standards, as well as delusional by most peoples standards. Oh well :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I've never been known as any other name on Slashdot, so there is no other name to call me. I didn't change my handle, identify as a unicorn, and then expect everybody else to abide by my wishes when addressing me. Bradley Manning, on the other hand, achieved national recognition as a male under the name Bradley. If you want to go along with the delusion that Bradley is now a female and call him Chelsea, that's fine for you, but I'm not going to go along with it.
I've never been known as any other name on Slashdot, so there is no other name to call me. I didn't change my handle, identify as a unicorn, and then expect everybody else to abide by my wishes when addressing me.
Doesn't make a difference, since that's just a handle, not your name. You're a hypocrite to demand that Chelsea Manning be identified by her first and last birth names, but you don't apply the same rule to yourself.
Bradley Manning, on the other hand, achieved national recognition as a male under the name Bradley.
So what? She is known, nationally and internationally, by her legal name, not a nym.
If you want to go along with the delusion that Bradley is now a female and call him Chelsea, that's fine for you, but I'm not going to go along with it.
That her name is Chelsea is not a delusion, it's a documented fact. To continue to call her Bradley is refusing to acknowledge reality, in other words, you're operating under a delusion, which is what you accuse the majority of the world of doing.
It's fine for you not to acknowledge it in private. It's not fine to label her, or anyone else who goes along with the findings of experts (transsexual) and the order of a judge (name change).delusional. It's also not fine to use her old name in public, if for no other reason that it's not her legal name. What is so crazy about wanting to be known by your legal name? BTW, here you would find yourself before judge for refusing to use a transsexual's new name, for sexual discrimination and possibly also sexual harassment; discrimination because you are harassing someone based on their birth sex, for the same reason.
Way back in 1951, the public and the media did not refer to Christine Jorgensen by her birth name. Your attitude is 65 years out of date, and has no scientific basis.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Doesn't make a difference, since that's just a handle, not your name.
On the Internet, nobody knows your a dog. Online realms are not the same as physical space.
You're a hypocrite to demand that Chelsea Manning be identified by her first and last birth names, but you don't apply the same rule to yourself.
Nope, you're just trying to equate to different realms while ignoring the difference. If Bradley Manning logged in to Slashdot as BarbaraHudson, and I didn't know who was behind the handle, then I'd refer to the handle as BarbaraHudson.
That her name is Chelsea is not a delusion, it's a documented fact.
It's a legal fact. I can continue to use the old name because "Chelsea" is not a woman and never will be, and I became familiar with the person as Bradley, not "Chelsea".
BTW, here you would find yourself before judge for refusing to use a transsexual's new name, for sexual discrimination and possibly also sexual harassment; discrimination because you are harassing someone based on their birth sex, for the same reason.
Good thing I don't live where "here" is, because that's fucked up authoritarian bullshit.
Okay, lets cut to the chase. This has nothing to do with Chelsea Manning passing along files that exposed wrongdoing. Nor does it have to do with what society wants or doesn't want, even though you have fantasies of power (shouldn't have used the term "realm", not in this context) and try to prove yourself as being better than others, so you feel justified in rebelling against social conventions.
What really burns your ass is transsexuals, all transsexuals, simple as that. All this is just you "acting out" because you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals, not just Manning. You also have a fear of castration (many men do, you're not that special), and transsexuals are a problem for you.
When you say others are delusional, you're projecting big-time. "Most of the world is wrong, it's only a special minority like me that see the truth."
And no, it's not "fucked up authoritarian bullshit" - it's enforcing people's right to live free of harassment, sexual or otherwise from people like you. Despite what you want to believe, nobody gets a free pass interfering with another's fundamental constitutional rights. You're not special enough to get a free pass. Better be careful - the law in the US is catching up. Eventually it might make it into the 1990s.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
even though you have fantasies of power
You're the one throwing the legal book at me, hypocrite. I'm not telling anybody else what they can or cannot call Bradley Manning.
try to prove yourself as being better than others
No, I just insist on not following the herd or being pressured into following the herd.
you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals
True enough, as I'm sure most men do when they're not being politically correct. What percentage of men do you think would date or marry a transsexual?
You also have a fear of castration (many men do, you're not that special), and transsexuals are a problem for you.
Castration is especially repulsive, yes, but guys dressing up as women is also repulsive.
When you say others are delusional, you're projecting big-time. "Most of the world is wrong, it's only a special minority like me that see the truth."
*shrug* Lots of people follow stupid ideas. Most of the world is religious, too. That's not going to sway me.
And no, it's not "fucked up authoritarian bullshit" - it's enforcing people's right to live free of harassment, sexual or otherwise from people like you.
Ah, yes, "harassment", the new tool of the authoritarian left.
Despite what you want to believe, nobody gets a free pass interfering with another's fundamental constitutional rights.
Like my constitutional rights to free speech? Thanks, I'm glad you're so concerned.
You're not special enough to get a free pass.
I guess I'm not a "protected class" with special privileges.
Better be careful - the law in the US is catching up. Eventually it might make it into the 1990s.
Fuck off.
You're not special enough to get a free pass.
I guess I'm not a "protected class" with special privileges.
Are you also going to say that transsexual women shouldn't use the women's washroom because that's a "special privilege"? That would also require transsexual mentlike these to use the same bathroom as women and girls. Do you really want to go up to any of these guys and say they're just women who had their boobs cut off? Or that they have to pee in the women's bathroom?
Some of them still have vaginas, which just goes to show that sex is more than what's between the legs.
It's not even a question of "protected class." Go up to any woman and keep addressing her as a man, using male names and pronouns. Or vice versa for any man. Everyone has the right not to be subject to your brand of harassment, whether they're transsexual or not.
you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals
True enough, as I'm sure most men do when they're not being politically correct. What percentage of men do you think would date or marry a transsexual?
Many men would, many men do. They aren't acting out of political correctness. Plus, you can't always tell that someone's a transsexual. As in the movie "transamerica" where one character said "We walk among you." It's a real hoot to watch men make fools of themselves dissing Caitlyn Jenner to someone they always knew as a woman and didn't know she used to be a man.
There's also the phenomenon of "trans-fans" - ,en who chase after women because they are transsexuals, and that makes them exotic. Plus, no worry about getting her pregnant.
you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals
True enough, as I'm sure most men do when they're not being politically correct. What percentage of men do you think would date or marry a transsexual?
You also have a fear of castration (many men do, you're not that special), and transsexuals are a problem for you.
Castration is especially repulsive, yes, but guys dressing up as women is also repulsive
You would have been a riot in Shakespearean times, where all roles, including female, were played by male actors. People didn't find it repulsive then, and it was only when the moral majority started their attacks that things changed.
Despite what you want to believe, nobody gets a free pass interfering with another's fundamental constitutional rights.
Like my constitutional rights to free speech? Thanks, I'm glad you're so concerned.
Ah yes, the last refuge of the freetard libertarians. Your right to free speech isn't absolute. Many forms of speech are illegal. For example, start making death threats, even to a third party. Start sexually harassing someone with lewd comments. Start passing child pornography around. False advertising. Try sending threats through the mail. Saying you have a bomb and are going to blow yourself up. Even copyright infringerment isn't protected, though people sure tried.
Now, lets get down to you. If you treat a transsexual at work the same way you have said you would treat Manning, even if it's only limited to not using their legal name, you can be fired for cause. There's plenty of speech that isn't protected by the second amendment, which is one reason why you would be well advised NOT
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
In any case, you are referring to a person by a name that is not hers, and which she does not want to be addressed by. You are assuming a sex that is not based on brain characteristics, and refusing to use Manning's name because you think it's a name of the wrong sex. I'm obviously not going to get you to use the proper gender of pronoun, but by using a name that isn't hers because of your prejudices, you're being rude.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are you also going to say that transsexual women shouldn't use the women's washroom because that's a "special privilege"?
There's already a common sense "rule" around this that's been in play before transsexuals became the new oppressed class that needs to be saved by progressives and big government: If you can pass as female, use the female bathroom. If you can't, hold it and wait until you go home or use the men's, since you aren't fooling anybody anyways.
It's not even a question of "protected class." Go up to any woman and keep addressing her as a man, using male names and pronouns.
The difference there is that they are actually women, not a transsexual who was once a man and will never be a woman.
Everyone has the right not to be subject to your brand of harassment, whether they're transsexual or not.
There's no law against hurting somebody's feelings or insulting them, at least where I live, thankfully. I best you can be told to leave somebody alone if you keep giving unwanted contact.
Many men would, many men do.
That's not a percentage.
You would have been a riot in Shakespearean times, where all roles, including female, were played by male actors.
Old societies were repressive against women, so they made do with what was allowed. When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag.
Ah yes, the last refuge of the freetard libertarians.
Because it's so unimportant that people have freedom, we should just take it away for the feelings of the newest "oppressed" class.
For example, start making death threats, even to a third party.
I'm not making a death threat. There's no violence, at all, in what I'm saying.
Start sexually harassing someone with lewd comments.
I've covered this above. If somebody doesn't want personal contact, then don't contact them.
Now, lets get down to you. If you treat a transsexual at work the same way you have said you would treat Manning, even if it's only limited to not using their legal name, you can be fired for cause.
Fine with me. Unlike you, I believe companies should be able to hire or fire people for whatever reason they want. Many states in the US have "at will" employment, though of course there are those "protected classes" in federal laws.
And there are many more transsexuals out there than you seem to think.
It's actually been estimated at less than 1% of the population. You probably interact with many more for obvious reasons, giving you a distorted view.
That's the dumbest thing about this, all this energy and drama being spent on such a tiny minority. But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills.
If somebody said there name was "My Master", and insisted I call them that, would I be "rude" to refuse? I will never see Bradley Manning as a woman, and calling him "Chelsea" bothers me, so I don't.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
After all, even 1:10000 is still a lot of people (and we know just by looking at surgeries performed in the US, ignoring those by US residents outside the country). The true number is now estimated to be 1:1000, plus 1:1000 who haven't yet sought treatment.. That's way more than the number of people who have gotten zika, and look at how much fuss that's causing.
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont.. Look at all the synthetic outrage that's been directed at transsexual women over bathrooms for what you think is such a small number, and why the people who are so outraged don't say anything about transsexual men using men's bathrooms. Just more old-fashioned misogyny.
As for men dressing up as women always being for laughs, try watching Transparent. 23 awards, including two to Jeffrey Tambor, including his Emmy 3 days ago playing Mort who transitions to Maura. And then there's Orange is the new Black star Laverne Cox, who made the June 9th, 2014 cover of Time Magazine. Pretty main-stream not-for laughs stuff. Caitlyn Jenner's show also was not for laughs. And yet, you would also insist on calling them men in dresses, denying the legal realities.
Yes, there are bigger problems to tackle, so it's a wonder that people (including you) expend so much time putting down transsexuals and backing bathroom bills, and that others have to spend so much time and energy refuting the bigots who are in favor of discrimination based on birth sex instead of current sex (which renders birth sex irrelevant).
Many other modern countries don't get their panties in a twist over this. Take Canada -there's never been a law against transsexuals using the washroom of their new gender, even before they finish transitioning, and there have been judgments in favor of transsexuals when someone tries to force the issue.
Ireland lets adults self-declare their sex on all official documents, including birth certificates, passports, and drivers licenses, no questions asked, no supporting documents needed. Argentina, Malta, Colombia and Denmark have similar practices, though Denmark has a 6-month wait before it becomes official, for "reflection."
Australia just requires a doctor's note. New Zealand doesn't even require a doctor's note. Ditto for most Canadian provinces, though usually an affidavit from someone who has known the applicant for a year or more is required.
It's now mainstream because laws are being passed that benefit only transsexuals, allowing them to better lead their lives in their true identities. The US is way behind the times, like in so many other social aspects such as universal health care. Of the 25 wealthiest nations, only the US fails to provide universal health care. Invading other countries under false pretexts and undermining legitimate governments is more important to Americans, because you do it so much.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
You sort of got it right. It's as I said in my last post: "But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills."
Progressives moved on from gay marriage to transsexuals. The North Carolina state law was in response to a city ordinance that "allows transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify".
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
I agree, but I don't agree with your definition of "harassment", and the general approach to "harassment" is to take the first step and ask the person you considering "harassing" you to stop contacting you. I'm not emailing transsexuals or confronting them in the street with their original name. I completely reject your goals to broaden the scope of "harassment".
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
Again, this "many". What percentage of men will date or marry a transsexual?
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont..
So fucking what? Google tells me there are 318.9 million people in the United States as of 2014. A tiny percentage of a very big number can still look big, but it would be absolutely foolish to waste an abundance of time/energy/money on such a small percentage.
That's way more than the number of people who have gotten zika, and look at how much fuss that's causing.
Zika is probably overblown too, but you are talking about birth defects here.
why the people who are so outraged don't say anything about transsexual men using men's bathrooms. Just more old-fashioned misogyny.
It's the opposite of misogyny. The concern is over sexual predators using women's bathrooms. And male-to-female is much more common than female-to-male, so it tends to get talked about more.
As for men dressing up as women always being for laughs, try watching Transparent.
Not for laughs, but for virtue signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. You don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
You sort of got it right. It's as I said in my last post: "But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills."
Progressives moved on from gay marriage to transsexuals. The North Carolina state law was in response to a city ordinance that "allows transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify".
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom? Just what are you afraid of? Can't be them raping others and getting them pregnant with their demon seed. They're far more likely to get assaulted if you send them to the men's washroom, because lots of guys are into trans porn and "doing a transsexual" is on their bucket list, and others would feel it's their right to beat them up because of what they are.
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
I agree, but I don't agree with your definition of "harassment", and the general approach to "harassment" is to take the first step and ask the person you considering "harassing" you to stop contacting you. I'm not emailing transsexuals or confronting them in the street with their original name. I completely reject your goals to broaden the scope of "harassment".
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read. I can guarantee that it's not just non-transsexuals who have read our back-and-forth. You have also already said that the reason you continue to refer to Chelsea Manning by her old male name is because that's how you first knew her when she got into the spotlight. You also said that transsexuals should be called by their old name and sex because they aren't really women, but men who have cut off their penis. It's obvious that you approve of this sort of trans-baiting because you're doing it right here, and by debating it, you are offering your encouragement to others to do this as well. In other words, you are suborning harassment based on sex.
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
Again, this "many". What percentage of men will date or marry a transsexual?
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont..
So fucking what? Google tells me there are 318.9 million people in the United States as of 2014. A tiny percentage of a very big number can still look big, but it would be absolutely foolish to waste an abundance of time/energy/money on such a small percentage.
Let's take your line of reasoning further. By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people. There's a 50% tax credit for R&D costs, $30 million in grants for phase 1 and phase 2 trials, and other advantages granted to developers of orphan drugs. Is it a waste of money to find a treatment for a condition that affects less than 200,000 p
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
BTW - I noticed that you referred to me as some sort of trans advocate. I have a long history of pickets, sit-ins, going to court, being on TV and radio and print, even a hunger strike, in support of minority rights, including the English language minority here as well as the rights of the French majority to send their kids to English schools if the wanted to, against a church for trying to bribe me (I don't take bribes, and I was surprised they even thought of offering an "inducement" not to rock the boat), government waste, forced municipal mergers, and yes, trans rights.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Manning's releases were suspect in motivation and intent and has some interesting legal issues. Snowden lacks most of those and to be honest, created the greatest value to Americans as opposed to hoping to aid other countries.
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom?
Are you saying transsexual men will have to demonstrate that their penis and testicles no longer function before using a women's bathroom?
Just what are you afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything. I just correctly identified who started this bathroom legalization nonsense. I already told you about the common sense "rule" that's been in effect as a matter of reality, and the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, money, and political energy. Pretty much what Blair White says -- a passing trans who's actually sane and not the kind of entitled authoritarian that you find on the "progressive" left.
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read.
Yes, that's the nature of public debate and discussion. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt in such matters.
By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people.
It depends. How much money is spent as a percentage of all drug research spending? You have to allocate your resources sensibly, because resources are finite. That doesn't mean zero should go to less common diseases, but it's be stupid to use the equivalent of cancer-level research on a rare disease.
The amount of political capital being spent on trans issues is ridiculous, and it's precisely because the "progressive" left has achieved their goals and kept moving down the "oppressed" stack.
And transsexuality, at least in male-to-female transsexuals, also starts in the womb. So what's your point?
I'm talking about preventable birth defects. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying we should do genetic studies and cure transsexuals in the womb? Because I can't equate preventable birth defects due to a disease-carrying mosquito with not calling Bradley Manning "Chelsea".
"Virtue signaling?" Hardly.
So "Brave and Stunning" that South Park had to do a show on it.
You claimed that it was always done for laughs, and you were wrong.
I missed some cases in the current climate of virtual signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. But you didn't refute my point that you don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.
Do you even know any transsexuals personally?
Turns out that they are such a tiny minority that I don't.
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom?
Are you saying transsexual men will have to demonstrate that their penis and testicles no longer function before using a women's bathroom?
Just what are you afraid of?
No - I'm asking what you are afraid of. That's exactly what I asked. What credible threat is there? So far, it's been all noise, no facts in the bathroom debate.
I'm not afraid of anything. I just correctly identified who started this bathroom legalization nonsense. I already told you about the common sense "rule" that's been in effect as a matter of reality, and the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, money, and political energy. Pretty much what Blair White says -- a passing trans who's actually sane and not the kind of entitled authoritarian that you find on the "progressive" left.
And what is the problem with one that is the same in all respects except for appearance? Why the discrimination? What is there to fear? Besides, we've had cases of men following women into the bathroom because they wrongfully thought the woman was a transsexual. ABC video. Even women born with 2 x chromosomes don't all "pass."
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read.
Yes, that's the nature of public debate and discussion. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt in such matters.
Mice way to avoid the question by not quoting the rest. That's pure chicken-shit.
By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people.
It depends. How much money is spent as a percentage of all drug research spending? You have to allocate your resources sensibly, because resources are finite. That doesn't mean zero should go to less common diseases, but it's be stupid to use the equivalent of cancer-level research on a rare disease.
The amount of political capital being spent on trans issues is ridiculous, and it's precisely because the "progressive" left has achieved their goals and kept moving down the "oppressed" stack.
How much money does it cost to let transsexuals use women's bathrooms? None. How much money does it cost to address transsexuals by their legal name? None. You have an issue with both of these, and there is NO financial justification for it. How much money has been wasted in courts fighting over this? A lot. And let's look at Charlotte, North Carolina as one example. They lost expansions by Deutsche Bank (250 jobs) and Paypal (400 jobs), among others. They also lost the NBA All-Star game, with the millions that brings in. Was it worth it, when there has never been an incident perpetrated by a transsexual in a woman's bathroom? No.
And transsexuality, at least in male-to-female transsexuals, also starts in the womb. So what's your point?
I'm talking about preventable birth defects. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying we should do genetic studies and cure transsexuals in the womb? Because I can't equate preventable birth defects due to a disease-carrying mosquito with not calling Bradley Manning "Chelsea".
And you know that transsexuality isn't preventable in the womb? We don't know enough to say one way or another.
"Virtue signaling?" Hardly.
So "Brave and Stunning" that South Park had to do a show on it.
Never saw it. I have better things to do with my time than sit around watchi
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No - I'm asking what you are afraid of. That's exactly what I asked. What credible threat is there? So far, it's been all noise, no facts in the bathroom debate.
I answered your question and asked you one in return. You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom. I don't particularly care about the bathroom debate, but you brought it up and made some assertions, so it's only fair that you respond.
Mice way to avoid the question by not quoting the rest. That's pure chicken-shit.
What did I leave out that invalidates my reply? I quote for context, and trim replies to avoid an ever-growing wall of text.
How much money does it cost to let transsexuals use women's bathrooms? None.
You don't own a business and do not have to deal with legal fees or upset customers.
None. How much money does it cost to address transsexuals by their legal name? None.
There's a political and social cost to adjust 99+% of society. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, no city ordinances would have passed, and there wouldn't be a big deal being made in the press with liberals falling over themselves to declare how "brave and stunning" Bruce Jenner was for nominally turning himself into a woman instead of focusing on the person he killed with his car.
Again, more bullshit. You said IT NEVER HAPPENED, not that it doesn't happen in the average Hollywood movie. Move the goalposts much? Can't even admit you f*cked up when it's blatantly obvious?
I did admit I was wrong, and added in the other cases from the cause du jour. But there's still a reason why men/trans don't take women's roles in Hollywood in the vast majority of cases.
How do you know that?
The same way that I've spotted a lot of activist trannies championing for women issues before they were eventually confirmed. Most do not pass, or they pass at a glance but the inconsistencies add up. Even Blair White has the kermit the frog voice.
Yeah, sure, it's possible I know somebody who is trans, but I will say for a fact that I don't know anybody who transitioned.
you cannot say with certainty that you have never had sex with a transsexual.
*snort* Ok.
1. I read the comments you replied to - you didn't admit you were wrong - you moved the goalposts and I called you out on it. You originally said "It never happens." Then you changed it to "It almost never happens" when I provided examples, without admitting that your original statement was wrong.
2. There are no "legal fees" involved with letting transsexuals use the washroom that matches their identity. To the contrary, there are legal fees in not doing so, because except for those places that have passed bathroom bills, you'd get your ass sued. As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them. Walmart, McDonalds, Target, Starbucks, Hudson's Bay Co. (parent company to Lord & Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue), Barnes & Noble and many more have no problem letting transsexuals use the washroom they identify with.
If you want to boycott companies that support this policy, you can't buy an iPhone, a Coke, use Google or Facebook or twitter, drink beer from Anheuser-Busch, fly United, or drive a car made by Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, or Volkswagen. No Nikes for you either. No MasterCard, Visa, Amex or Discover card. No Ikea. No Home Depot. Don't eat anything from General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft, or Kroger. No DirecTV. No Sony, Universal, Paramount, Disney, and Warner Bros flicks. No Comcast, AT&T, or Time Warner internet either. And no NBA games.
They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.
Your arguments don't match reality, so again, what are you really afraid of?
It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue? Are you equally rude in other aspects? Do you insist on telling strangers why their dress makes them look fat? Or that their newborn is on the ugly side? When someone asks you if they have any bad points, do you bomb them with a list? You don't know Chelsea Manning, so what is your problem? You have no problem using my new name, even though you were around when I was first outed on slashdot 10 years ago, and it's been a bone of contention with the religious nutters in lots of threads for the last decade.
And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each. Neither had a clue. When I told the first one, he flat-out refused to believe it, even after I showed him newspaper clippings that mentioned it. Kind of embarrassing for him because every time he saw Caitlyn Jenner on TV he went off on how transsexuals should stay as god made them (even though he wasn't religious), that they weren't really women, etc.But now he things we're great. So does the second one - he would have moved back here a few weeks ago if he had gotten a job locally.
So you can't necessarily tell, and you run the risk of assuming a genetic XX is actually a transsexual because, as I said before, not all women pass as women.
4 of my sisters are just like you. Refused to use the right name and gender. One of them even did the same thing when her best friend brought one with her to visit my sister. Embarrassed the crap out of her best friend, with the same excuse you used - "I knew him as a man, and he'll always be a man to me." Even though it's obvious that she didn't know him, not really.
Being rude "on general principles" on a subject that you are not qualified to pass judgement on in the first place is just ignorant. You are not a medical specialist in this. I use them as my sources to justify my stand - what do you use to justify yours?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Do you know anyone whose legal name is "My Master"? Or do you find "Chelsea" personally abhorrent? To repeat, you are refusing to call someone by their legal name, which is completely unobjectionable, and insist on using a name that isn't theirs and which they don't want to be called by. Pull that on me and I'm either going to be ticked off, or just disregard you as a petty annoyance.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
First I will note that you completely skipped (for a second time) the question I put to you in response to your assertion: "You made an assertion about non-functionion male genitals. I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom."
You call me chicken shit (for not fully quoting you, though when pressed you give nothing that would have invalidated my reply), but here you are dodging a question based on your assertion.
I also did not see you admit that the North Carolina anti-trans state law was in response to a pro-trans city law, despite your earlier implication that it was conservatives against gay marriage going after a new target that started all this bathroom nonsense.
You originally said "It never happens."
That's twice now you fabricated a quote that I did not say. I gave a single case, "When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag." I admitted there were other cases I missed, namely the "progressive" cause du jour of transsexuals.
It doesn't invalidate the context of the argument, which started with you talking about male actors in Shakespeare being accepted as women (turns out the law forbid women from acting at the time). The overwhelmingly vast majority of women's roles in Hollywood are taken by actual women. In fact, the only cases that you gave me were roles where the "women" were transsexual as specified by the role.
you'd get your ass sued
That's what passing trans laws has done, opening up new lawsuit threats. This happens every time the government creates a new "equality" law.
As for the "upset customers", first off, transsexuals and their allies (which are a significant portion of the consumer public) also have the right to be upset by not letting transsexuals pee in the safest place for them.
Everybody has a "right" to be pissed off or not.
They have all discovered that supporting the rights of transsexuals is just good business. It makes economic sense.
No, they all jumped in to the current climate of political correctness and the "progressive" cause du jour. Whether it makes economic sense or not is debatable, as they're really just afraid of the mainstream press targeting them and doing virtue signaling of their own to get positive press.
In response to all this drama, started by "progressives", Target is spending $20 million to install a single-use bathroom for any sex in all its stores.
so again, what are you really afraid of?
How many times do I have to answer this? I'm not afraid of anything, and I have very little interest in the bathroom drama, but you insist on dragging me into this argument, and I feel obliged to correct some of your bullshit and play devil's advocate.
It doesn't cost anything to use the new name and gender, so why do you have a stick up your ass on this issue?
Because I refuse to go along with the herd and participate in other people's delusions. We've already covered this.
And if you think you can tell, you're wrong. Twice last year I rented out my spare bedroom to men for 4 months each.
Congratulations. But there are plenty of cases where I could tell. And I'm guessing you didn't have sex with any of your roommates without them knowing.
I'm asking how only those transsexuals with non-functioning male genitals will be allowed to use the women's bathroom."
Most people don't have problems with transsexuals using the bathroom that conforms to their gender identification. It's not up to us to solve the problems of people who have hang-ups about it. It's also not up to us to figure out how to determine if someone is non-functional, because it's not our problem - it's yours. If you have a problem with it, go use the handicapped washroom. Problem solved. We are not responsible for your emotional problems and hang-ups.
Also, the bathroom nonsense started a decade ago, in Missoulla, pushed by the local fundie churches. This is not new. They were attacking everything that wasn't what they considered "normal", but they knew they were losing ground even then on the whole gay marriage thing. You should learn the history before making stupid claims.
You admit that you said "When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag." You made a clear statement, with no exceptions, and the when I pointed out it wasn't true, you tried to walk it back. Won't work.
Also, I sure didn't have sex with the guys I rented out my spare bedroom to. I'm not that easy.
Now, let's get back to the original topic. You refuse to call Chelsea Manning by her proper name. You say it's because you "refuse to go along with the herd and participate in other people's delusions." Do you still call black people niggers? After all, the rest of the world stopped doing it. Are we delusional? Too progressive for you? Or is being polite not a good thing in your universe?
BTW - those single-use bathrooms that Target is installing in their stores? That's not reserved for transsexuals. That's for people who have a problem with possibly sharing a bathroom with transsexuals, because Target has already said we can use the bathroom that matches our gender identity, and we don't have to go pee in a separate bathroom. That $20 million is to accommodate bigots. If you were to complain that I was using the woman's washroom, YOU, not me, would be directed to the single-occupancy stall, as per Target's policy, because I sure as hell won't, and I'd be ready to take them to court over it (fortunately, it's been the law that we go where we feel is appropriate since at least the '90s, even though police haven't bothered to take complaints since the '70s. Oooh - we're "progressive"). Fact is, they're spending $20 million to keep the bigots like you away from the rest of the world.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's also not up to us to figure out how to determine if someone is non-functional, because it's not our problem - it's yours.
But you're the one who claimed it wasn't an issue in the first place because of those non-functioning parts. First you dodged the question, then you moved the goalposts. You're a hypocrite.
Also, the bathroom nonsense started a decade ago, in Missoulla, pushed by the local fundie churches.
I don't see a cite here, and regardless of what happened in Missoula, what does that have to do with North Carolina? This is misdirection on your part to avoid the fact that a city passed a pro-trans bathroom law, which prompted a reaction from the state.
You made a clear statement, with no exceptions, and the when I pointed out it wasn't true, you tried to walk it back. Won't work.
It works in context. Sorry, no sale.
Also, I sure didn't have sex with the guys I rented out my spare bedroom to.
So you can't say you would have "passed" in that regard. And if you haven't had genital surgery, you know you wouldn't have passed in that regard.
Do you still call black people niggers?
That's a pretty dumb analogy. I don't believe men can become women, but what does that have to do with what you call black people? A more appropriate analogy would be considering if Rachel Dolezal is black because she made herself look black and "identifies" as black. I consider her white. Do you accept her as black? Do you think the black community should accept her as black?
That $20 million is to accommodate bigots.
As I said, businesses have to deal with irate customers, and it's costing them money, despite your claim that it was good business and economic sense.
It's still not OUR problem. If someone else has a problem with it, how is it up to me to solve it? Answer - it's not. Same as if someone is offended by my being an atheist. Not my problem.
As for cites, you crippled? You certainly were able to hone in on outdated, repudiated studies on your own.
Do you have sex with your landlord? Do you think as a landlord you are entitled to sex from your tenants? The guys I rented the bedroom to were just that - tenants. Are you so stupid as to think that tenants have sex privileges? Oh, right, you have this stereotype in your mind that we're all like the losers in that shitty show Transparent.
Transparent is crap. Sure, there are many who look and act like that - they're literally fucking idiots. AIDS-bags. Let anyone screw them to get some sort of validation as to who they are. But that is far from the reality for many of us. Of course, the reality won't make for good TV. So cast a man in a dress as the central character "Maura". Let him be every single painful cliche, the embodiment of every single painful cliche and stereotype, because that makes for good ratings.
Also, we weren't the ones causing the problem with Target, so don't lay that on us. The bathrooms were specifically so that transphobes would be accommodated. We were already accommodated just fine. So they spent $20 million dollars on religious and other bigots, not on us. Charlotte, North Carolina, has already lost more than $20 million in business because they passed their bathroom bill - and that's a recurring annual loss, not a one-time expense. The businesses in other states sure made coin out of not bowing to intolerance.
Why don't you watch Transparent - it's your kind of BS propaganda.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It's still not OUR problem. If someone else has a problem with it, how is it up to me to solve it?
You're the one who claimed it wasn't a problem in the first place. When confronted with the idiocy of your statement, you dodged and then moved the goalposts. You are a hypocrite.
As for cites, you crippled?
So you have no cites for your claim, and cannot explain why you are talking about Missoula when North Carolina is under discussion. You are a hypocrite.
Oh, right, you have this stereotype in your mind that we're all like the losers in that shitty show Transparent.
You're hilarious. A show I never watched (or even heard of), that you used as an example of men taking womens roles, but it's really just a show about a tranny that you call shitty. *golf clap*
The point is your ridiculous claims about me possibly having sex with a tranny unknowingly. Super-hint: If you've got male parts, it ain't gonna happen, even if you manage to pass and not have man-hands, man-shoulders, man-hips, man-hair, man-jaw, man-voice, or any other number of features that make passing difficult.
Also, we weren't the ones causing the problem with Target, so don't lay that on us.
Your crowd stirred up the drama. You claimed it was just good business and economic sense.
Charlotte, North Carolina, has already lost more than $20 million in business because they passed their bathroom bill
Are you trying to make my point for me? It's the city of Charlotte that started this with a pro trans bathroom bill, and the state that countered it. Charlotte started the drama for no good reason other than the "progressive" cause du jour after moving down the "oppressed" stack after gay marriage was passed.
Why don't you watch Transparent
Because I have zero interest in watching a show about trannies.
Because they all look so much like men NOT! Plenty of women would kill to look like her.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yes, there are rare exceptions, especially if they transitioned at a young age, though they will never be able to bear children. Bradley Manning isn't one of them. Neither is a guy with a square jaw, giant Adam's apple, and broad shoulders, despite wearing lipstick and long hair, yet we're told we must participate in their delusions.
Ann Coulter has publicly stated that “for all intents and purposes, I am a woman, too.” This statement, a direct quote from Jenner’s “20/20” interview announcing his embrace of his life as a female, was met with little immediate fanfare.
The rest of the story is made up, buy why would anyone have to say that unless ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Ever see the Adam's apple on [nationalreport.net] Anne Coulter [newslo.com]? The man hands?
No and no. I do see her giraffe neck, weird eyes, and big cheekbones. Never found her attractive. Now this is an Adam's apple.
Come on, it's clearly visible in the second picture. See how it comes to a point?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I didn't click the second link, but yes, though for all I know it's shooped. Anyways, this debate seems to have veered off into the mud. I don't deny that there are women with masculine features. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept Bradley Manning as a woman.
And as I said, the world disagrees with you. You're the one stuck in the past. Fortunately, TV programs like Modern Family and the transition of Caitlyn Jenner have pretty much normalized those who do not conform to the old norms.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.