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."

Comments

Never

[tsa]

Assange knows that will never happen. Obama has trouble even treating Manning like a normal human being.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Manning isn't a normal human being. Manning is a traitor that leaked an enormous amount of data after appearing to be manipulated to do so, much of which was legitimately classified. There were certainly exceptions, but there always are exceptions.

Add to that that Manning decided afterward that he wanted to be a she, and that the US government is somehow obligated to pay for it. Why any prisoner (in the military or not) is somehow entitled to sex reassignment surgery is beyond me; there's nothing life threatening about not getting it and it seems like a reasonable punishment to block it while they're in prison... because they're in prison for committing a serious crime (and if they're wrongfully in prison, then that's the problem -- not the inability to get a sex change).

Manning, like Snowden, does not deserve a pardon. They are both traitors to their countries and the incredibly minor amount of "good leaks" (e.g., Snowden's leaking of widespread wiretapping) was far, far outweighed by the massive trove of legitimately classified material that was leaked (e.g., Snowden's leaking of exactly how we perform certain spy activities against foreign powers).

Re:Never

[DarkOx]

The thing to recall here is the Manning is not Snowden. Manning had access to a bunch of embarrassing information and he had an axe to grind. When Assange came along and afforded him the opportunity to grind said axe he took it.

It turned out that there ware some revelations in the documents that probably indicated criminal action by the state however that does not a whistle blower of manning make. Intent counts a lot here or should. Manning did not come forward with information because he wanted to prevent a crime, expose a moral outrage, bring to light critical facts that stand to reshape a societal debate; rather he did it because he was pissed off at the system in general. That falls below the whistle blower standard considerably.

Its also true that unlike Snowden who despite what CONgress says he did compromise the safety of others in the field. The Snowden leak might certainly have undermine an investigation and harmed other intel gathering efforts but it was really all about technology and its hard to see without evidence which does not seem to be forth coming how it could have lead to anyone getting hurt directly. Again congress concluded otherwise but I assume they are lying and they should put up or shut up. After all the harm is already done right so why should it still be secret? Manning's leaks on the other hand provided enough information to out individuals who were undercover.

Manning most certainly does not deserve a pardon.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Your second paragraph is trivially wrong - you don't deny people medical care just because they're in locked up. Whatever your political opinion on gender identity disorder and associated therapy+surgery, the medical opinion is what matters.

As for your first/third paragraphs -

1. It would be tactically nearly impossible for an individual to leak information about unconstitutional activity without also dropping information about legal activity.

2. Who released this information to the public?

3. "Traitor" is a label thrown about by mindless patriots, dredging up old memories of McCarthyism and the Cold War. America hasn't been put in danger because a private contractor revealed some information about how America spies on others, private and public - information that ten thousand private contractors before Snowden have had access to and undoubtedly tossed into the wrong hands.

On the contrary, to have a chance of putting America in danger, you'd have to clandestinely help other countries do precisely what America was doing to others, IOW you would spy on America on behalf of another country. If you were also an American citizen, you might then be a traitor.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Lesson learned. Don't leak shit if you aren't rich and have friends in his places.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

No, traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots." It's a very good word to describe someone who betrays oaths and their country. Manning did both, and did so deliberately, willfully to hurt his nation, not to "expose injustices" or any such bullshit, but out of petty revenge.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Loyalty to country / oath = precisely not ignoring illegal actions.

2. Doesn't really matter what her initial motivation was - she could have done it because she was a dirty racist who didn't like the President's color, for all I care.

2. Give evidence that she did it "deliberately, willfully to hurt [her] nation" please.

She didn't seriously injure her country or try to destabilise it or encourage war against it. She did not cooperate with a foreign nation. She was acquitted of "aiding the enemy". To stick the "traitor" label on her is ridiculous.

(Also, to stubbornly stick with "him" suggests you're not really interested in facts and are emtionally clouded.)

Re:Never

[William Baric]

I will agree to traitors to their government, but "traitors to their country" is debatable.

Re:Never

[ClickOnThis]

No, traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots." It's a very good word to describe someone who betrays oaths and their country. Manning did both, and did so deliberately, willfully to hurt his nation, not to "expose injustices" or any such bullshit, but out of petty revenge.

Treason, under the U.S. constitution, can only be committed during a time of war.

The last time the U.S. Congress declared war was June 5, 1942. Authorizations of military force (not to trivialize them) do not rise to the level of a declaration of war.

Therefore, Chelsea Manning, no matter what else you think of her, and no matter how deserving she is of punishment for leaking sensitive information, did not commit treason. Ditto for Edward Snowden.

Re:Never

[FlyHelicopters]

Solitary confinement is torture.

I agree...

Further, I feel that life in prison is also torture... the idea that we put people into 10 foot by 8 foot concrete boxes for the rest of their lives is evil in my view...

Even if the person does horrible things, that is now how you treat humans, or you're no better than them...

Maybe you can't let them go free, but you could have prison farms and communities made up of such people where they have an area to build a home, farm food, and have a life away from the rest of us...

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason, under the U.S. constitution, can only be committed during a time of war.

Don't know about you, but from where I stand it seems pretty clear that the US is at war.

Re:Never

[rtb61]

Technically speaking Manning only publicly exposed traitors when actions where illegally taken to obstruct justice by keeping secrets of criminal activity. Expose just one crime and that is sufficient, in fact it is illegal to keep those secrets so Manning adhered to the prima facie law, that law that it is illegal to obey illegal orders, including orders that purposefully obstruct justice. This further demonstrated by Snowden when he exposed high crimes, whereby the President on down broke their constitutional oaths with some of them further lying under oath and all of them breaking electoral laws by electioneering with public funds keeping secret criminal activity that would have a major impact upon elections.

Both Manning and Snowden are accused of far lessor crimes than Uncle Tom Obama and his entire corrupt cabinet, this demonstrated from day one, when they failed to gain justice for citizens who died in a war based upon lies and this blatant corruption of justice repeated again and again over eight years, ending in the failure to prosecute Clinton, why, because they expect the corporate whore to protect them in turn from real justice.

Gees the propaganda bullshit coming out of these criminals is way over the top, as is their blatant public ignoring of laws, of blatant public criminal acts based around greed and corrupt associations with war industries.

Re:Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Because it's what's between the ears that counts. Your brain governs everything you do. It's who you are. And when your brain has developed (in the 1st trimester) to be atypical, with some structures and signalling behavior that leans towards the opposite sex, what would you expect? And yes, prisoners are entitled to orthodontic care. That's part of good health for everyone, no controversy there whatsoever. When you have control and custody of someone, you're supposed to act as a good custodian. It's not like the prisoner has the freedom to take care of themselves the way that they would wish.

Think of it - even when you're "thinking with your little head", it's the big head that's being influenced. Dicks do NOT have a mind of their own, despite what Barf says in Space Balls. It's your brain that's acting, and it is influenced by the structure of the brain. (How it) function(s) follows form. This is obvious when people have brain damage, tumors, dementia - in all three cases there's an underlying altering of the brain that can change the individual's personality - often drastically. Same with the unborn male fetus, when the testes fail to produce enough testosterone at the 12th week, or when the receptors fail to react. In both cases, we can see the effects in the development of other structures that are growing at the same time - the finger bones. Just look up 2D:4D digit ratio. Kind of hard to deny something is going on differently when there's easily visible proof. To think that it wouldn't influence the rapidly developing brain at the same time is pretty much not believable.

Re:Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Being pissed off at the system in general is a valid motivation for blowing the whistle on the portion of it that you can affect. Just because you can't fix everything doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix something.

Re:Never

[quenda]

Isn't it funny ... how the people quickest to yell "traitor" are so often the same ones who seem to almost worship the Founding Fathers?

That treason actually killed tens of thousands of people, but is somehow more OK.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

"collateral murder"

Read about it, watch it. No, not the troll I'm replying to, but everyone else. As time goes by, it's understanding by the public will be challenged by erosion. At the time it was released, there were literally, and provably, at least tens of thousands of civilian casualties of U.S. post-9/11 undeclared war in the middle east that WERE NOT BEING COUNTED. Tens of thousands of unjust premature deaths by military equipment. NOT COUNTED IN ANY WAY. The U.S. government was clearly committing war crimes. Only after Wikileaks provided the FUCKING SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE, were those tens of thousands of unjust premature deaths from post-911 undeclared war by the U.S. in the middle east COUNTED.

Go fuck yourself and die scum. I find it pretty fucking plausible that Manning intended to, and FUCKING AMAZINGLY SUCCEEDED IN "exposing injustices".

That many of the biggest politicians of our day and age are so cowardly as to continue to deny this... is something history will not look kindly upon.

Re:Never

[ArmoredDragon]

Because it's what's between the ears that counts.

So if I believe that I'm a helicopter then that makes me a real helicopter. Got it. But at any rate, that doesn't make any kind of a case for surgery.

And yes, prisoners are entitled to orthodontic care. That's part of good health for everyone, no controversy there whatsoever.

I really don't think you understand what orthodontic care means, and why it's not health related. In fact if you go to prison already having braces, chances are the only "care" you'll get is to simply have them removed. There's only super rare medical cases where orthodontic care is medically necessary, and chances are that if you were born with a medical need for orthodontic care, you'd have had it addressed long before you were even old enough to land in prison.

In other words, if you enter prison with crooked teeth, then you're coming out with crooked teeth. Having crooked teeth is perfectly healthy and is neither a disfigurement nor is it a birth defect, much in the same as being slightly overweight is perfectly healthy and doesn't call for liposuction.

Think of it - even when you're "thinking with your little head", it's the big head that's being influenced. Dicks do NOT have a mind of their own, despite what Barf says in Space Balls.

This is exactly why I don't like replying to your posts.

Same with the unborn male fetus, when the testes fail to produce enough testosterone at the 12th week, or when the receptors fail to react. In both cases, we can see the effects in the development of other structures that are growing at the same time - the finger bones. Just look up 2D:4D digit ratio. Kind of hard to deny something is going on differently when there's easily visible proof. To think that it wouldn't influence the rapidly developing brain at the same time is pretty much not believable.

If the case is strictly this, then there's practically no medical explanation for female to male trans people, nor would you be able to explain why about 10% of adult trans over 26 decide to return to their birth gender, or why around 70% of people under 26 spontaneously lose the desire for a sex change.

Re:Never

[Dog-Cow]

He's in solitary because he tried to kill himself. The correct action is to allow the suicide. I really hate the Christian idea that has become a part of US culture -- that we have to actively prevent suicides from succeeding. It's stupid and usually counter-productive.

Re:Never

[Dog-Cow]

Because pissed off at something doesn't mean the something is wrong. I don't care for my manager, that doesn't mean that it's right to dox him.

Re:Never

[walshy007]

Because it's what's between the ears that counts.

If it's what's between the ears that counts, there is no and can be no argument for any kind of sex reassignment surgery, because what is between their legs does not count at all.

It's your brain that's acting, and it is influenced by the structure of the brain. (How it) function(s) follows form.

Yes, and people are allowed to have different brain structures, a male having a stereotypically female structure does not make them any less a male. Likewise with female but with stereotypically male structure.

Quite often females in engineering pursuits can have stereotypical male traits such as better spatial awareness and poorer emotional awareness, but that does not make them any less female.

It seems odd to me that on the one hand those on the left-wing can often demonize sex stereotypes but on the other use those stereotypes prescriptively as "you aren't an x unless you conform to these behaviours that I've decided this physical sex must have".

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>1. Loyalty to country / oath = precisely not ignoring illegal actions.
Yes. This. Besides which I would go further and quote Oscar Wilde: Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.
He was right too. Loving a country is simply an insane idea which is pushed only by those who want to engage in, or get others to engage in, or get others to cover up vicious behavior. It's merely a contemporary form of good old fashion tribalism. Love individuals who act good. A country - that's just an attempt to establish an artificially defined tribe of barbarian raiders.

>2. Doesn't really matter what her initial motivation was - she could have done it because she was a dirty racist who didn't like the President's color, for all I care.
Maybe, but this happened under Bush so that's not likely to be the cause. The leaks Manning got arrested for were related to the early days of the Iraq war - and what was in those leaks were truly horrifying abuses of power and simple slaughter of unarmed civilians.

>2. Give evidence that she did it "deliberately, willfully to hurt [her] nation" please.
Some people consider anything but blind loyalty to fit into that category. "My country right or wrong" types can't ever conceive of a justified reason to hurt your country - like say to stop it from hurting innocent civilians so much. Truth be told - there are almost no reasons for hurting ones country which are not fully justified. Hurting innocent people - that is never justified. Hurting the government on the other hand can hardly ever fail to be an act of moral good. The same goes for powerful corporations or, indeed, anybody who gets to make decisions that powerless people suffer over.

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

If the letter of the law can be grounds for being imprisoned it must also be grounds for release. Legally speaking - America refrained from going to war, so treason was not legally possible.
America has had a habit ever since the end of world war 2 of fighting wars without declaring them. It started during the cold war when, arguably, there was some good reason for it - declaring those wars could have led to a direct confrontration with the Soviet Union which neither side wanted. Using proxy wars without declarations were a diplomatic ploy to avoid that risk.
But that hasn't been a factor since 1991. Since then though, presidents have figured out that it is also a good way to significantly reduce the constitutional and congressional barriers you need to actually use the military. There are some pretty tight restrictions on when America is allowed to declare war -and almost none of the wars since 1991 would meet those obligations - so the loophole they found is to fight them without actually declaring them. The only actually legitimate American military action post-1991 was in Bosnia, where they were invited - as part of a genuine international alliance (indeed the French Foreign Legion actually saw more combat in that one than any US troops did) and once the dictator was removed left - and let the world cooperate to reconstruct the nation. But then - American companies did not get a lot of juicy construction contracts out of that one - and we can't have *that* now can we ?

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>I'd otherwise agree except, as GP stated, this isn't medically necessary and is purely cosmetic.
I'm sorry but the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is, in fact, medically necessary and, indeed, lifesaving. Untreated gender dysphoria is known to cause suicidal depression on an unmatched scale - transgender people have a successful suicide rate (which is far lower than the attempt rate) 4 times higher than the national average in every demographic. That's clear evidence of a medical need.

Yes, your brain is an organ and it's chemistry is a biological function and problem there - such a gender dysphoria or whatever name it will have next is a legitimate medical need. Sure this science if young - the name of the condition and the theories about causes and how it actually happens have been effectively rewritten from the ground up 4 times in 20 years. That changes nothing. At this moment, at this time - doctors need to act according to the best science available, and the right of prisoners to medical care should be allocated on the same basis.

> This would be like saying you should have the right to orthodontic care, tummy tucks, facelifts, liposuction, etc.
False equivalence fallacy on every count. Firstly those operations are not based on a recognized medical condition, unlike what we are talking about (*your* personal failure to recognise it does not make it any less recognised). Secondly those operations are in no way similar to gender reassignment surgery and you're just proving your ignorance of what it entails. Those operations are mostly outpatient procedures, even the most risky of them are a couple of hours under. Gender reassignment on the other hand can have several years of prepwork before the surgery even starts, usually requires numerous surgeries for each bit that's changed and the surgical part of the process takes several years as well to complete - with massive risks. It's not something anybody chooses for vanity, it's just too massive an undertaking for anybody to do on a whim. It's a situation that nobody would subject themselves to unless they were seriously in need. The suggestion that it's similar to a tummy tuck is ignorant in the extreme.

>but because they just don't want to.
Yes, this is true. You are wrong however about whose argument it proves - it disproves your argument. It proves just how severe a decision it is - and the only trans people who do it are the ones whose need is so great that they cannot live without it. Every trans person who can avoid it, does avoid it.

Re: Never

[silentcoder]

>Until very recently, homosexuality effectively removed your genes from the pool,

Nope. Never been true. Gay people have been having kids since time immemorial. Most of them married somebody of the opposite sex as part of their cover after all. Not to mention the best scientific evidence we have suggests that homosexuality is transfered epigenitically - which means you don't need a gay gene to have gay offspring. The fact that homosexuality has been observed in over 3000 species and is now believed to exist in pretty much all sexual species - proves it *must* have an evolutionary survival advantage for the species, it simply cannot be that common (including across kingdoms with no common ancestor for a billion years) unless it's a universally good thing to have in a species which evolves again and again.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Only problem with point number one. Manning did not reveal any illegal actions.
2. Motivation is not relevant, HE gave classified information to individuals not authorized to have it.
3. What other evidence is there for the shoveling of hundreds of thousands of classified documents to unauthorized individuals.

He did it because he felt picked on and hated life in the military. He disregarded the oath he had sworn and the NDR he had signed and intentionally copied vast quantities of classified data and then gave it away. He did intend to injure the country and is a traitor. And does not deserve any expensive medical treatment not actually needed to sustain life.

Re:Never

[dwillden]

The Rosenbergs were executed for Treason. We were not in a state of declared war with the Soviet Union whom they committed their act of treason on behalf of. Your argument has no basis in reality.

Posting AC to preserve Moderations.

Re:Never

[TheRaven64]

The grandparent said:

"Traitor" is a label thrown about by mindless patriots

You replied:

traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots."

I find it interesting that your subconscious autocorrected 'patriot' to 'idiot', but it doesn't really help the point that you're trying to make.

Re:Never

[Solandri]

Nice strawman. The AC you quoted didn't mention treason. Very few people have been convicted under the Treason clause of the U.S. Constitution, namely because the Founding Fathers made it so damned difficult to prove it.

Manning and Snowden were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. It reads as almost a textbook definition of "traitor". (Personally I think Snowden could be pardoned for acting as a whistleblower, since he's been careful to release only documents relating to questionable government programs. His only complication would be that some/most of those documents are ones he shouldn't have had access to. Manning OTOH did an indiscriminate wholesale data dump of both questionable and legal activity, which IMHO voids any whistleblower defense.)

Re:Never

[reboot246]

Several U.S. citizens have been convicted of treason when the country was not at war. Look it up.

Re:Never

[johanw]

People like you used to have the "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" excuse after WW2. You're just pissed that Manning, Snowden and Assange have rendered that excuse void.

Re:Never

[johanw]

Indeed, loving your country does not mean you have to appease it's fuhrer in every way.

Re:Never

[johanw]

> America has had a habit ever since the end of world war 2 of fighting wars without declaring them.

It leaned from Japan the value of a good surprise attack, aka "preemptive strike".

Re: Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Please link your scientific study showing 3000 species with homosexuality or otherwise supporting a conclusion that any sexed special will experience homosexuality.

And I would clarify. An animal that will have sex with any member of it's species (or even things not of its own species, like legs and stuffed animals) is not gay if it happens to try it on of the same sex. It's only gay if it ONLY tries to do so with its own sex.

Re:Never

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's only been a couple of decades that your attitude has not held legal sway, jailing men who like being "fucked in the ass".

You owned all history up until then, and still do on most of the planet.

Good riddance.

Re:Never

[phayes]

Dwilden's example shows that that clickonthis' attempt to narrow the definition of traitor to uniquely apply during times where congress has declared war (in an attempt to disqualify using it for Manning) is obsolete.

Re:Never

[BarbaraHudson]

I never tried to "explain the causes" of female-to-male trans, because we just don't have enough information (and it's irrelevant to the discussion of Chelsea Manning anyway).

Also, your figures for spontaneously deciding against it are based on fraudulent studies, including those at CAMH, where one of the leading proponents of "reparative therapy" was fired and his clinic shut down. He (Kenneth Zucker) made quite the killing over the years milking parents financially by interpreting ANY behaviour that was even slightly outside gender norms as "your kid needs therapy or else". Of course they "grew out of it", they were never properly diagnosed as transsexual in the first place.

Zucker and those like him played upon people's fears, and with support from the religious right that reparative therapy could "fix" someone who might be gay or lesbian or trans. His techniques are now under government ban in many places, including the province he practiced in (Ontario). In New York, such crap was banned under consumer protection laws because it doesn't work as claimed (it doesn't work at all). Many researchers and practitioners who wanted to believe that they could "repare" people (for a buck, of course) did everything to try to justify their actions, which have a long history of fraudulent claims about being able to change people's gender identity. Probably the worst was John Money of Johns Hopkins, who faked all his research, and was only caught out after a post-doc did a review, and his "success" had never actually been happy living as a girl despite Money's claims that he had succeeded in changing David Reimer's gender identity after Reimer lost his penis in a botched circumcision. Reimer detransitioned as soon as he found out what had been done to him, got married, and eventually killed himself. Some success. The gender you identify with simply isn't mutable.

Unfortunately, it took a long time for people to realize that.

Way more than 90% of those who get a sex change don't revert back to their birth gender. The pressure from society, the lack of acceptance, is why some do. Others may do so, or delay, to preserve contact with their minor children. Still others may because of money - m2f trans take a real pay hit, to the point that it's either go back to presenting as male or selling sex, and while many go into the sex trade for this reason, not everyone is willing to risk HIV/AIDS. All this in no way means that they wanted to detransition, just that society doesn't accept them, so they pay the price.

If you read the above link, you'll find that Manning was one who detransitioned at one point because of the inability to fit in in her new role, but finally decided that if you're going to be miserable anyway, might as well be your true self.

Re:Never

[BarbaraHudson]

The Olympics also banned a couple of XY women who later on gave birth to children. All those who like to shout "but chromosomes" don't really have a clue. Then again, so many of them are guided by religion, not science, that they don't dare question what they have been led to believe.

And it's not like there aren't animals that spontaneously change sex, becoming fully functional in their new sex, including being fertile. It's part of nature, and it highlights that we just cannot take such a complicated subject and reduce it, and the people affected, to a throw-away line about chromosomes. It's not justified by science or ethics.

Re:Never

[BarbaraHudson]

It also doesn't mean that it's right, so your argument sucks. You don't care for your manager, and there would be no ethical problem reporting him or her for illegal activity. Don't want the whistle blown on you, don't treat people like sh*t and don't do illegal sh*t.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

No, traitor isn't thrown around by "mindless idiots." It's a very good word to describe someone who betrays oaths and their country. Manning did both, and did so deliberately, willfully to hurt his nation, not to "expose injustices" or any such bullshit, but out of petty revenge.

Treason, under the U.S. constitution, can only be committed during a time of war.

The last time the U.S. Congress declared war was June 5, 1942. Authorizations of military force (not to trivialize them) do not rise to the level of a declaration of war.

Therefore, Chelsea Manning, no matter what else you think of her, and no matter how deserving she is of punishment for leaking sensitive information, did not commit treason. Ditto for Edward Snowden.

Manning, while clearly a Traitor, chose his bed by aiding the enemy while in active duty. He was tried not for Treason but for aiding the enemy under Section 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Even if War was outright declared as per your "1942" definition then Manning would still remain a Traitor to the country. Just like the Rosenbergs as mentioned prior clearly your statements are besides reality and merely conjecture.

Re: Never

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, there is increasing evidence that it isn't biological, or at least one "cause" isn't biological. There are studies of identical twins, where one is gay, and the other isn't, that would pretty much eliminate natal / chromosome disorders. Which means it likely to be psychological or environmental, at least in part.

But that doesn't fit the narrative of the LGBT community because they want it to be biological, so you won't hear them talking about those studies.

Re:Never

[Archangel Michael]

I hate my government, but love my country. For exactly the same reason why Snowden is both a traitor and a hero.

Re:Never

[Archangel Michael]

It depends on which case you're talking about. In the case of Snowden, I've always said he is a both a traitor and a hero. He can be both, at the same time.

Re:Never

[Anonymous Coward]

Loyalty to country / oath = precisely not ignoring illegal actions

Incorrect. Loyalty is commitment to fulfilling one's obligations. Being faithful to your country when it's doing bad things is being loyal to your country. Note that I'm not personally in favor of this, as an individualist I abhor all tribalist attitudes, especially the ones society considers virtuous.

Doesn't really matter what her initial motivation was - she could have done it because she was a dirty racist who didn't like the President's color, for all I care.

It matters to the law. Whether it matters to your personal sensibilities is irrelevant, motivation is important aspect of your legal system and you can't just ignore it because your fee-fees say otherwise.

Give evidence that she did it "deliberately, willfully to hurt [her] nation" please.

You are welcome to read through the court case and judge the prosecutor's arguments for yourself.

(Also, to stubbornly stick with "him" suggests you're not really interested in facts and are emtionally clouded.)

The "social construct" definition of gender is not factual, it's purely emotion-based drivel. But more to the point, the comment you respond to was referring to Manning as he in the past tense, which would be the the correct usage. When speaking of entities in the past tense, you are supposed to refer to them by their former state as opposed to the current state (eg "the ice melted", rather than "the water melted"). You are projecting your own emotional attachment to the issue.

Re:Never

[vel-ex-tech]

Another reason to vote Clinton!

Amazing how persuasive you folks are!

Re:Never

[cyberchondriac]

Even if the person does horrible things, that is now how you treat humans, or you're no better than them...

Maybe you can't let them go free, but you could have prison farms and communities made up of such people where they have an area to build a home, farm food, and have a life away from the rest of us...

False, if you're talking about violent criminals. People who brutally hurt innocent victims have nothing like a moral equivalence to a system which punishes said people. With this logic, punishment itself becomes intrinsically "wrong", because it makes us "as bad" as them. Next they'll argue that separating these poor bastards from the rest of society is cruel.

Re:Never

[ClickOnThis]

The Rosenbergs were executed for Treason.

No, they were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage. You might think that's the same as treason, but it is not.

Re:Never

[vel-ex-tech]

Yes, keep believing this!

You make it so incredibly easy to slip into the women's room with my advanced infiltrator woman suit and rape little girls!

What would I ever do if anyone approached the issue from a perspective other than men in dresses?!

Re:Never

[FlyHelicopters]

He's in solitary because he tried to kill himself.

So we are torturing him because he tried to take his own life?

That is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. You're not wrong of course, but it is still dumb (the position, not you)

The correct action is to allow the suicide.

Of course it is, if someone wishes to take their own life, that is their choice. But in this case, it wouldn't be suicide, it would be murder.

He (she) has already been tortured by their treatment...

Re:Never

[tsa]

That may all be true but civilized countries treat people decently whatever they have done. Torture is just not done there.

Re:Never

[Cederic]

it seems like a reasonable punishment to block it while they're in prison

Forcing someone to live as the wrong gender feels very unreasonable, to the extent that I would expect it to be wide open to a constitutional challenge as a cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Never

[Cederic]

You can't change his DNA just because you and he feel differently.

You'll be delighted then to know that her DNA shows her to be a woman.

In other news, there's treatment available that might help you. It's called education.

Re:Never

[quenda]

both a traitor and a hero. He can be both, at the same time.

Of course, that's part of my point. The Founding Fathers are more obviously both - heroes to millions, but clearly traitors and they never denied this but only justified it. They had their reasons, but the damage done to achieve their goals was staggering. The harm done by Snowden is minuscule in comparison, and he is suffering for it, rather than gaining wealth and power, so perhaps his justifications are worth listening to?

Re:Never

[ArmoredDragon]

I never tried to "explain the causes" of female-to-male trans, because we just don't have enough information (and it's irrelevant to the discussion of Chelsea Manning anyway).

It's relevant because the key contention is whether prisoners are entitled to sex change operations. Your argument is that it is because of the way a trans person's brains develop, yet two counterpoints I plainly observe are thus:

- Female to male transexualism is a thing, and yet following your reasoning about brain physiology, it cannot apply here.
- You can dismiss this assertion if you want, but I tend to draw a mental picture of the person I'm debating and how the person debates tends to hint their gender. I've had it happen at least a few times where I suspected that a "female" was debating with online was actually a male, and then it turned out to be the case later (sometimes years later.) I've read about this and indeed, it turns out that males tend to argue more direct-aggressive. Females tend to try to be more passive-manipulative. You, to me, argue much more like a male does, especially given that your posts are often vitriolic. In light of this, I remain dubious about neurology claims when applied to your particular case. But again, you're welcome to dismiss that if you want, because it's more based on intuition than any hard evidence, and I will not be debating this particular point any further.

Also, your figures for spontaneously deciding against it are based on fraudulent studies, including those at CAMH, where one of the leading proponents of "reparative therapy" was fired and his clinic shut down.

About that...It turns out that Zucker was in the right, and that this whole thing was due to politics.

The External Review, Zucker’s allies believe, was just a sloppily executed pretense for submitting to political pressure. “There was likely a desire on the part of the [CAMH] administration to close the clinic, and the review was designed to allow them to do just that,” wrote Dr. Susan Bradley, who founded the GIC in 1975 before handing the reins over to Zucker about a decade later, in an email.

And if you look closely at what really happened — if you read the review (which CAMH has now pulled off of its website), speak with the activists who effectively wrote large swaths of it, examine the scientific evidence, and talk to former GIC clinicians and the parents of patients they worked with, it’s hard not to come to an uncomfortable, politically incorrect conclusion: Zucker’s defenders are right. This was a show trial.

***

In 2016, there’s fairly solid agreement about the proper course of treatment for otherwise healthy, stable young people who have persistent gender dysphoria, and who are either approaching puberty or older than that: You help them transition to their true gender. The process is different from person to person, but for an 11-year-old, it might include a round of puberty-blocking hormones to prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics and buy time to figure out the best course of transition, followed by the administration of male or female hormones, and, later on, possibly sex-reassignment surgery or surgeries.

With kids who are still years away from the onset of puberty, though, there’s a charged controversy about what’s best. That’s because here, two seemingly conflicting truths collide: Trans people deserve to have their identities recognized and respected; and research suggests that most gender-dysphoric kids will, in the long run, end up identifying as cisgender. In other words, a sizable percentage of them aren’t transgender in the same, usually permanent way trans adults are.

More important bits:

So Zucker and his colleagues can’t even agree with their critics on basic terms and definitions — on what a “reparative therapy” accusation eve

Re:Never

[walshy007]

The idea that being male or female has anything to do with anything other than sex is an invention of the 60's.

It pushes certain things as associated with males and females that aren't necessarily the case. If you support people being able to be people you should support the reduction/cessation for male/female for use for anything other than what it is actually talking about, the biological sex.

2) Humans come in at at least 12 sexes - these includes visible hermaphrodites (of several kinds) but the vast majority of whom are utterly indistinguishable from "male" or "female" because none of the differences are external. Sex is determined by chromosomes. XX is female, XY is male. But those are not the only ones out there. XXY is extremely common - and physically indistinguishable from female - but tend to have higher average testosterone levels - several olympic gold medalists have been XXY and the olympic committee banned XXY women from competing until the 1990s unless they also suffered from another condition that prevented the absorbtion of testosterone (see now there is yet another mechanism - even if you have male or female hormons of the right amounts many people are born unable to absorb those hormones properly).

I am very aware of those types, and would consider them "genetic abnormalities" rather than the norm, nobody said there can't be "male, female, other" when speaking entirely on biology

The idiocy we want to stop is "my gender is pizza", "I am a man because I like beer" and things of that nature, basically the entire idea of gender.

Some interesting reading. I don't think this whole "lets call gender anything we want" business was entirely thought through. It seems quite lazy and makeshift, being whatever people want while condemning those who refuse to "see the light".

Re:Never

[walshy007]

This is not a common human trait, abnormalities and mutations exist, as is to be expected.

I'd consider the more extreme biological abnormalities as neither male or female but "other" biologically. They are different, neither male or female in the typical sense.

But biology aren't what people are fighting here, people tend to accept biology a lot more than they do "my gender is pizza because I like it".

An interesting read on some issues with the concept of "gender". Sometimes I think people just don't think things through.

Re:Never

[Raenex]

Posting AC to preserve Moderations.

Nice job.

Re: Never

[silentcoder]

There is no reason why an epigenetic effect cannot affect one twin and skip another. Epigeneitcs is a whole host of things other than genes that can affect development. They range from acquired but heritable traits through hormone-wash varation into toxsin exposure to gene activation triggers. Many could affect one fetus and not the other. Hormone wash variation certainly could and is considered a prime candidate for the cause of homosexuality.

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>The idea that being male or female has anything to do with anything other than sex is an invention of the 60's.

So is the idea of pulsars, the idea of machines that do math, the idea of cars that keep working for more than 10-thousand miles, the idea of a quantized universe, the idea that black people are human beings and the idea that human beings can walk on the moon. Science improves. Knowledge improves. New ideas arrive and displace old ideas because they have stronger evidence.
Though, your claim is only true of Western society, in other societies it was like that for thousands of years. Maori's for example have had three genders for far longer than they've had writing.

>I am very aware of those types, and would consider them "genetic abnormalities" rather than the norm,
Who decides what's normal. This site is filled with people who were considered "abnormalities" for most of the last century and experienced a great deal of bullying and ostracising just because their interests lay in mathematics and engineering rather than sports. Even if you're right, that says nothing about how we ought to treat these people.
We no longer call kids with Down Syndrom "foundlings" and leave them to die in the woods. We now try to raise them to live as close to a normal life as possible. Not so long ago "normal" only include white-skinned people (and even among those it didn't include "Irish" ones).
Normal is only an aspiration if you lack the courage to be exceptional. Even if these things are genetic abnormalities, that doesn't tell us anything about how to treat them. These are, for the most part, genetic variations which have no major impact on your basic ability to function as a productive member of society. They aren't abnormalities that justify genetic screening even. All they need you to give is a little compassion. Hell XXY 'women' can and do have children for example. These are not lesser people. Just different people.
A year ago, my then 1-year old daughter swallowed a peanut which went down the wrong hole and ended up stuck in her lung. She needed surgery (camera tube) to remove it. So I got to watch a video of the internal structures of my daughter's lungs and windpipe. The doctor mentioned that people usually have three connections from the main windpipe to the right lung. She only has two. I asked if this was anything to be concerned about. The doctor replied "Absolutely not. It makes no different to her ability to breath, it is just a part of the genetic variation that occurs within the human species - chances are you or your wife are the same. I only mentioned it because it's interesting to see the variation, not because it's meaningful".
And I would put these people in the same category - just interesting examples of the variation that occurs within the species. There are genetic variations and mutations that can seriously impact people's health - and are worth learning to screen out. Cystic fibrosis and the like. These conditions do not fall under that category since there isn't a single health effect associated with them which cannot be entirely eradicated by just having a tolerant society.

The simple truth is - there is no such thing as "normal". Normal has a meaning if you're doing statistics, there is a "normal" distribution of test scores. If you're talking about people - it describes something which does not exist.

>The idiocy we want to stop is "my gender is pizza", "I am a man because I like beer" and things of that nature, basically the entire idea of gender.
Why do you justify the potential reasonable last conclusion using a reduction to the absurd fallacy that clearly suggests the only reason you consider that is because you consider transgender people to be stupid or mentally deficient ? You undermined any chance of being considered reasonable by doing that.
But lets pretend you were actually trying to be reasonable.
Well firstly - even if there was a "my gender is pizza" person- what exactly makes them wrong ? Gender has no physical exist

Re:Never

[walshy007]

Gender has no physical existence or meaning. It's a societal construct, a purely artificial idea.

Why were the words "male" and "female" used to describe these constructs then? Surely if a _new_ concept was made, _new_ words could be used for it and this whole crapshoot could be bypassed.

I think confusion and hatred were the goal of using that terminology.

So is the idea of pulsars,

You see how a different word is used for a different concept and different categorization/description?

New ideas arrive and displace old ideas because they have stronger evidence.

When the "new ideas" are by admitted by themselves as entirely socially constructed and don't necessarily have any bearing on reality, how can they ever be shown to be false if they are? without the ability to falsify a conjecture evidence is impossible (evidence are simply tests that could falsify a conjecture and have been done but have not, we prefer the conjectures that have had the most tests done of the most types but has yet to be shown to be false)

Well firstly - even if there was a "my gender is pizza" person- what exactly makes them wrong ?

This is the problem, the concept of what is being spoken about is so vague, so devoid of meaning that it can mean whatever people want.

The use of male and female in such a way strips the words of conveying any actual meaning, and language is all the poorer for it. When people want to talk about things to do with aspects of males and females there is a whole boatload of unnecessary confusion which has been created.

If the point of language is to convey meaning, things that reduce languages expressive ability work against it.

People can be however they want to be, but people should be able to call a spade a spade without offensive intent being assumed.

What about freedom of thought ?

People are free to think whatever they like, such as 2+2=58, but I am also free to point out to them that that is not the case. Freedom works both ways.

It's like people claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old, they are free to think that, I am free to think them silly and point out that current evidence is not in their favour and their preferred theory has epistemological issues.

It's like otherkin and wolfkin, people who honestly believe they are an animal in a humans body, they are free to think that, and I am free to point out to them that they are in fact human and that no evidence could ever be presented of a supernatural world because the claims aren't falsifiable.

Anyway, a more accurate analogy would be to say that intersex people are like red/green colourblind people. They may wear a red shirt and green pants together and believe they are wearing matching clothes. Just because red and green looks different to you - does it make them worthy of discrimination that it looks the same to them ?

Well for starters discrimination is simply the ability to discern the differences between things, if a person can tell the differences between things they are already discriminating.

There is a difference between discrimination and unfair treatment based on discriminating against someone on something based on irrelevant criteria.

People should be able to tell different things apart without it being assumed something nasty is being said. People should be able to tell a dolphin and a fish apart without having people say "dolphins are big enough and live in the sea, they should be called a fish"

There are standards, they may change, but I think it best for words to be at least capable of having descriptive power. Having something mean anything someone wants (the concept of gender identity) causes problems when people try to wield that as a weapon against people.

It all comes back to, if someone honestly thinks themselves a wolf in a humans bod

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>Why were the words "male" and "female" used to describe these constructs then?
Only one culture in all of history did that, and even there it's a fairly recent phenomenon. It comes from people mistakenly thinking that male is a synonymn for man and female for women. But it's not. You almost never get a female with a penis - but there are plenty of women who have penisses.

>Surely if a _new_ concept was made, _new_ words could be used for it and this whole crapshoot could be bypassed.
The concept isn't new - like I said, only one culture in history ever did this conflation. The understanding of this issue, in our culture, is new.

>I think confusion and hatred were the goal of using that terminology.
Who the hell are we trying to confuse or hate then ? And why ? What the hell could possibly be in it for a tiny oppressed minority in further igniting the hatred and confusion of a society that tortures and rejects them ?

>You see how a different word is used for a different concept and different categorization/description?
You're the one who is using the wrong words (male and female) for gender, and then claiming everybody else did. The Western genders are "man and women" and nowadays we recognize some more. The 'male and female' are not genders, they are two of the sexes. You are using the wrong words and mistakenly accusing others of using those words when generally they do not.

>When the "new ideas" are by admitted by themselves as entirely socially constructed and don't necessarily have any bearing on reality,
Now you're conflating the two thing AGAIN. Our ideas about the sexes has massively changed in the last 40 years - because those are real, biological things, and the science has hugely improved.
However our ideas about gender are evolving in paralel. There is absolutely no reason abstract ideas must be static, we create them because they can be useful, but that also means we can improve them, it means some versions are more useful than others. Our culture's collective ideas about gender is changing, because the old ideas had serious deficiencies that caused harm.

>how can they ever be shown to be false if they are?
Abstract ideas cannot be false. They can't be true either. All you can ever say about them is that they exist - but the only measure you can put them to is their usefulness. They don't have a truthfullness since they don't represent reality. They are merely mental tools - which are evaluated by how useful they are. Ideas about gender fall in this category.
Ideas about real, physical things must be subjected to scientific scrutiny, falsification, experimentation and all that this entails. There a truthfullness element does exist. Ideas about the sexes fall in this category.
You can often improve the utility of an abstract idea by letting ideas about reality influence it - this is why ideas about gender have to a large extent evolved in paralel with ideas about sex. As the science of the sexes improved, we expanded our ideas about gender since it meant there were concepts those ideas could not previously express.

>This is the problem, the concept of what is being spoken about is so vague, so devoid of meaning that it can mean whatever people want.
Who cares ? Why is that a problem ? It makes ZERO difference to YOUR life which pot somebody pisses in. Unisex bathrooms are not crisis for society - I'm willing to wager you have one in your fucking house right now. If it has no impact on anybody else - how the hell can it possibly be a problem ?

>The use of male and female in such a way strips the words of conveying any actual meaning,
Neither male nor female are used this way. "man" and "women" are used this way. Male or female are not genders, they are sexes. They are also not ALL the sexes that occur in the human species. What's noteworthy here is that they are the only ones that have names in English. But there are certainly scientific terminology for the others.

>It's like otherkin and wolfkin, peo

Re:Never

[walshy007]

Again, a false analogy. Transgenderism is not an illusion that is contradicted by visible physical evidence. You can't SEE they are wrong with your eyes. Only an MRI can see if they are right or not. The trouble for you is that the MRI's are agreeing with them.

If gender itself means absolutely nothing, then those MRI's are completely irrelevant aren't they?

If the point is about biological sex and at what point stereotypical features determine the line between male and female that's a discussion that can be had. But you are on the one hand saying gender means nothing, and on the other that MRI's can determine the properties of this "nothing".

Again, a false analogy. Transgenderism is not an illusion that is contradicted by visible physical evidence. You can't SEE they are wrong with your eyes. Only an MRI can see if they are right or not. The trouble for you is that the MRI's are agreeing with them.

Many people justifiably assume that the word ‘transgender’ is synonymous with ‘transsexual’, and means something like: having dysphoria and distress about your sexed body, and having a desire to alter that body to make it more closely resemble the body of the opposite sex. But according to the current terminology of gender identity politics, being transgender has nothing to do with a desire to change your sexed body. What it means to be transgender is that your innate gender identity does not match the gender you were assigned at birth. This might be the case even if you are perfectly happy and content in the body you possess. You are transgender simply if you identify as one gender, but socially have been perceived as another.

It is a key tenet of the doctrine that the vast majority of people can be described as ‘cisgender’, which means that our innate gender identity matches the one we were assigned at birth. But as we have seen, if gender identity is a spectrum, then we are all non-binary, because none of us inhabits the points represented by the ends of that spectrum. Every single one of us will exist at some unique point along that spectrum, determined by the individual and idiosyncratic nature of our own particular identity, and our own subjective experience of gender. Given that, it’s not clear how anybody ever could be cisgender. None of us was assigned our correct gender identity at birth, for how could we possibly have been? At the moment of my birth, how could anyone have known that I would later go on to discover that my gender identity is ‘frostgender’, a gender which is apparently ‘very cold and snowy’

Once we recognise that the number of gender identities is potentially infinite, we are forced to concede that nobody is deep down cisgender, because nobody is assigned the correct gender identity at birth. In fact, none of us was assigned a gender identity at birth at all. We were placed into one of two sex classes on the basis of our potential reproductive function, determined by our external genitals. We were then raised in accordance with the socially prescribed gender norms for people of that sex. This is done long before we are able to express our beliefs about our innate gender identity, or to determine for ourselves the precise point at which we fall on some form of "gender continuum".

So defining transgender people as those who at birth were not assigned the correct place on the gender spectrum has the implication that every single one of us is transgender; there are no cisgender people.

The logical conclusion of all this is: if gender is a spectrum, not a binary, then everyone is trans. Or alternatively, there are no trans people. Either way, this a profoundly unsatisfactory conclusion.

The way to avoid this conclusion is to realise that gender is not a spectrum. It’s not a spectrum, because it’s not an innate, internal essence or property. Gender is not a fact about persons that we must take as fixed and essential,

Re:Never

[walshy007]

?>Behavioural norms for sexes exist and have existed for a long time,

So what ? At best that's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Fallacies do not convince me of anything.

I think you missed the point, _you_ were talking about the history of behavioural norms for the sexes, and referring to them as gender identities.

I was not saying whether they were right or wrong, only pointing out that what you were referring to as "gender" was really "societal behaviour norm for a sex"

Re:Never

[walshy007]

Why ? Why do you have this desperate need to classify other people ? Humans really are not classifiable. The only USEFUL classification you can ever give to anybody else is "a member of my species" - everything else is the first step to a deathcamp.

The ability to tell the difference between things is quite useful. If you are advocating the complete removal of telling people apart from each other that has serious consequences.

The ability to tell the difference between people with diabetes is a useful categorization that will affect the treatment of people...

Same with cancer.

categorization is not of itself bad in any way. It is simply there to convey properties of a group.

If the ability to discern the differences between people is so concerning for you, perhaps you should endeavour to get the government to outlaw giving people names or unique identifiers of any kind. I wish you luck with that.

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>If the point is about biological sex and at what point stereotypical features determine the line between male and female that's a discussion that can be had. But you are on the one hand saying gender means nothing, and on the other that MRI's can determine the properties of this "nothing".

No, there are two things - gender and sex. MRI's can determine sex. Gender is something society constructs and assigns. However when sex and gender is misaligned this can cause severe stress for people, so they ought to be free to express a gender that matches their sex. Or doesn't. Or matches both. Different people have different mental needs, but since gender is purely mental - whatever they need to do satisfy their mental needs is fine by me. What the MRI's prove is that people who choose a gender different from the one society asigns them overwhelmingly do have a sex different from the one their genitalia matches.
So no the point is not about sex or gender, it's about both - and specifically the fact that both are attributes of each person and how these attributes influence each other. That one is a biological attribute and the other a psychological one changes nothing.

>You are transgender simply if you identify as one gender, but socially have been perceived as another.
So what ? At that point you entering purely into the realm of gender and since psychological things still have real health effects - why not let people do whatever makes them happy ? It's not hurting anybody else. All they ask is that you respect their identity. Nothing more.

> Given that, it’s not clear how anybody ever could be cisgender.
Actually it's perfectly easy. The vast majority of people overlap sufficiently well with their assigned gender role to never (or at least extremely rarely - like once or twice in their whole lives) have any significant concerns about being perceived as, treated as and expressing themselves as that gender - and importantly they are never, ever discriminated against or mistreated over it.The minority for whom this is not true - experience maltrreatment and discrimination on a constant basis on top of the psychological difficulties from having a severe personal identity crisis. That is not an experience you could possibly begin to comprehend if you haven't lived it.

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>The ability to tell the difference between things is quite useful. If you are advocating the complete removal of telling people apart from each other that has serious consequences.

Nope. You got names and faces - those are the only ways that don't have equally serious consequences to none. The difference between the horrible consequences of telling people appart in other ways, and the consequences of not telling them apart at all is that the former has happened many times throughout history while the latter is a purely theoretical risk.

>The ability to tell the difference between people with diabetes is a useful categorization that will affect the treatment of people...
If you're a doctor ? Sure. Do *I* need to know if you have diabetes ? Even then diabetes only tells me you need insulin, it says nothing else about you. I can't even conclude you lived an unhealthy lifestyle since diabetes can also be genetic.

>categorization is not of itself bad in any way. It is simply there to convey properties of a group.
That's exactly what it does NOT do. It conveys A PROPERTY of the group, it never ever conveys more than one. Which mean it's not a category to begin with - it's just a property, and that's all you ever needed to know.

>If the ability to discern the differences between people is so concerning for you, perhaps you should endeavour to get the government to outlaw giving people names or unique identifiers of any kind. I wish you luck with that.
Reduction to the absurd was a fallacy I called out the last time you used it, it isn't less of a fallacy now - especially since it's so ridiculous that earlier in this post (before I read this part) I actually said that names and faces are useful to tell people apart.

See it's incredibly useful to tell individuals apart, it's always evil to tell groups apart because - in reality, there are no groups, there are never any real groups. The only legitimate time when identifying a group is anything other than pure evil is when you're practising restorative justice to undo the past evils committed when they were identified as a group.

Re:Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Bull f*ing shit. The cause of female-to-male transsexuality has nothing to do with whether a male-to-female transsexual (in this case Chelsea Manning) is entitled to surgery as a medical necessity.

As for the rest, I'm not going to even bother reading it after that fine example of stupdity. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Never

[walshy007]

MRI's can determine sex.

I've heard many different types of criteria for sex, but I've never seen that used as one. To my knowledge what's between your legs when you're born is often used, but failing that what chromosomes you have unless you are intersex. Have you seen cultures where brain scans are used as the primary criteria as to whether someone is male or female? I think even oestrogen/testosterone levels would be more commonly used than that as criteria.

Gender is something society constructs and assigns. However when sex and gender is misaligned this can cause severe stress for people, so they ought to be free to express a gender that matches their sex.

If gender is entirely socially constructed, and has nothing to do with sex, how is there any "misalignment" since after all, "gender" can mean anything, and has nothing to do with sex by your own admission.

Either gender identity is based on sex, which is biological, or it is completely a social construct, in which case it has nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with mri's or any other physical trait.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Of note there is a significant difference between having "gender norms" culturally vs presenting some kind of "I'm male" (even when they are female) case. One is cultural norms to do with a sex, the other is just hogswash (The "I innately feel like x which I'm not" style argument).

But the long and short of it, identity politics is pretty horrible stuff.

Re:Never

[walshy007]

I will let people doing scientific studies that they are no longer allowed control groups then.

and yes I'm done with this, all you've shown me is effectively that you have no clue.

Re:Never

[david_thornley]

It still seems to me like the operations are largely cosmetic. They don't change a male body into a female body. They change the genitals to resemble a woman's in some ways, giving the woman the ability to have better recreational sex, which has obvious good effects. (In the case I am most familiar with, she also got cosmetic surgery on her face to look more female.) I don't see it as significant if the person's underwear stays on. It isn't a vanity thing, and it's clear that people who get the surgeries really really want them, but it isn't clear to me that they're necessary in this case.

I'm writing partly from ignorance, and I know darn well that there are people around here who know much more about this than I do (Hi, Barbara!), so I'd welcome correction.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

Or, I do understand rather well, meanwhile you have more of a male mind than you realize.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

No - you haven't got a clue, as you have so often demonstrated in the past on this very same subject. This last attempt to put words in my mouth that I never said were pitiful. Maybe you should own up to it.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

What words did I put in your mouth?

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>To my knowledge what's between your legs when you're born is often used, but failing that what chromosomes you have unless you are intersex. Have you seen cultures where brain scans are used as the primary criteria as to whether someone is male or female?

What the hell does cultures have to do with science ? It's what science tells us is the only accurate way.

>If gender is entirely socially constructed, and has nothing to do with sex, how is there any "misalignment" since after all, "gender" can mean anything, and has nothing to do with sex by your own admission.
Because society pretends they are the same and categorizes your gender based on physical sex organs - which unfortunately is not a reliable way to ascertain *either* sex or gender.

>Either gender identity is based on sex, which is biological, or it is completely a social construct, in which case it has nothing to do with sex and nothing to do with mri's or any other physical trait.
False dichotomy. Gender is an entirely social construct which is based on sex - but it's based on such an atrociously bad way of determining sex that the link is, in fact, utterly tenuous. Even so - social constructs DO exist in brains - they are nothing BUT brain developments, do you think anything you think does not have a physical representation in your brain. The mind is not some ephemeral nothingness, it's neural connections in a biological computer. And MRI's is the tool we have to view the program code. We can't see very deeply - it's not a hex editor (yet), more like running ldd on a binary - you can see what the program is linking too but not what it's calling from the libraries. But we can see that men and women brains link to a different set of libraries.

>You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can hold mutually contradictory views if they are only contradictory in the minds of the ignorant.

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

>I will let people doing scientific studies that they are no longer allowed control groups then.
Okay, seriously you need to stop with the reduction to the absurd - it's getting ridiculous, and this one is particularly pathetic. A control group is not a 'group' in the sense we were talking about at all anyway. It's merely a group the experiment is not done on - it's a group only in the meaning of 'more than one' and deliberately NOT chosen to have anything else in common (by choosing them randomly). Their SUPPOSED to share NO other traits but the one you're controlling on - which makes them, in the sense we were talking about exactly NOT a group. Which is ideal considering they are supposed to represent the population at large which doesn't have any.

Re:Never

[silentcoder]

From a purely surgical standpoint they are largely cosmetic - but that does not mean they are not life-saving treatments.

Besides which - we do pay for cosmetic surgeries all the time for prisoners. Burn victims get skin grafts - and they don't need those to survive, it just improves their quality of life afterwards enormously and greatly reduces the risk of PTSD.

In this case a psychiatric condition can be seriously detrimental to survival, and a cosmetic surgery can greatly relieve it. That counts as a medically valid cause for surgery.
Interestingly we even recognise this in children. The standard treatment for transgender kids before puberty is hormones to delay the onset of puberty until they are legally of age (and physically mature enough) to have surgery. It's a lot easier to do the surgery on a body that has not yet undergone puberty and the hormone treatments are far more effective as well.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

You made it clear several times that my explanations relating to m2f transsexuals must be invalid because they don't explain f2m transsexuals, even though I made it clear that my remarks were only applicable to m2f transsexuals. Quit trying to imply things I never said, and using that to discredit what I actually said.

BTW - There had been complaints about Zucker's methods in treating children for 2 decades, and he was unable to produce any studies that he didn't have a connection to that backed him up. Zucker is now toxic - nobody is going to hire him after years of documented child abuse.

Re:Never

[david_thornley]

Thanks for the good explanation.

Re:Never

[cyberchondriac]

Wait, who said anything about torturing? that's your definition. I think jail is a logical and self preserving reaction, most of these people are dangerous (I wasn't referring to say, simple drug offenders, but rapists and murderers) and will hurt more people unless they are removed from society; further, there is no justification to *reward* their awful and anti-social behavior with a carefree, happy, simple, meals and board paid life on a farm somewhere. That's better than most good people have it. Personal responsibility requires consequences for one's actions. Do bad acts *without justification or defensible provocation*, bad things happen to you.

Re:Never

[FlyHelicopters]

Wait, who said anything about torturing?

Putting someone into a 10 foot by 7 foot concrete box for the rest of their lives is torture...

That isn't even my definition, that is what experts believe.

Do bad acts *without justification or defensible provocation*, bad things happen to you.

And that is why it will never stop, because people like you feel that it is ok to do bad things to people because "they did them first".

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

I once thought like you do, until I woke up and saw the truth, that it was self-destructive thinking that leads to never ending violence.

Re:Never

[cyberchondriac]

What experts are those? And if you're talking about solitary confinement, okay, sort of, for prolonged periods. But the vast majority of the prison population aren't in the cells all day though, or in SC. They already get gym time, television, a library, and other amenities.
You believe treating bad people who violently hurt other people for wanton reasons (like greed or hate) will stop being violent because you treat them with kid gloves? That it won't actually increase crime because the sentence is basically a reward? You're not going to ween people off of violence by catering and bowing to them, because it's an ingrained part of human nature, more so for some people than others. Your newfound innocence is charming but I'm afraid dangerously naive.

Re:Never

[FlyHelicopters]

What experts are those?

Experts such as physiologists who know a fuck ton more than you do.

Your newfound innocence is charming but I'm afraid dangerously naive.

And you're a fucking asshole who should be waterboarded so you know what you're talking about...

Then you can apologize over and over and over about how sorry and wrong you were.

Re:Never

[cyberchondriac]

Experts such as physiologists who know a fuck ton more than you do.

LOL.. What the fuck would a physiologist know about psychology or behaviorism? And you're suggesting I'm the one who's stupid?
That's a convincing way to cite your claims.

And you're a fucking asshole who should be waterboarded so you know what you're talking about...

Then you can apologize over and over and over about how sorry and wrong you were.

Oh, I see.. Let's be nice to the truly evil people, discomfort = torture = wrong. But make *me* mad and suddenly I call for waterboarding, and start using insults like an angry child.
I hope, for your sake, you're a troll, "FlyHelicopters", because otherwise you've got a mental illness. Thanks for wasting my time, in either case.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

You made it clear several times that my explanations relating to m2f transsexuals must be invalid because they don't explain f2m transsexuals, even though I made it clear that my remarks were only applicable to m2f transsexuals. Quit trying to imply things I never said, and using that to discredit what I actually said.

Are you high? That is NOT putting words in your mouth; rather it's pointing out a big inconsistency with your argument. I've stated multiple times that I think there's a different underlying cause in many if not most cases, even one time showing you a medical whitepaper that suggested that BIID may share a same or similar underlying cause, but you always go right back to the argument about brain development, which obviously can't explain many cases, ftm being a very obvious example that it can't explain at all.

There had been complaints about Zucker's methods in treating children for 2 decades, and he was unable to produce any studies that he didn't have a connection to that backed him up. Zucker is now toxic - nobody is going to hire him after years of documented child abuse.

If you read that article I quoted, you'd find out that this isn't true. He never at any point refused treatment to anybody. What the PC police (and people like you) were wanting to string him up for was the fact that his clinic never made surgery referrals, and the thing is, it was never supposed to, instead it was supposed to refer them to another clinic who was then supposed to evaluate for candidacy for surgery -- his whole thing was always about the behavioral health aspect of it, and nothing else. (In any medical study, it's always a good idea that if a person is otherwise in good physical health, and a particular condition has a chance to correct on its own, then it's best to give it that chance instead of pushing for more drastic options, i.e. surgery, and you cannot fault him for that, especially given that he ultimately sent many patients in the direction that you advocate) Anyways, some dumbass claimed that he was insulted by Zucker, which is what prompted the firing. Only it turns out that he had never even seen Zucker, which was later proven, but only after he was fired.

But honestly you're worse than a church official that is being given evidence that his beliefs might be wrong, because at least they don't lash out at you and try to make you out to be a nazi.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

It's not that Zucker ever refused treatment. He milked everyone he could for money. The "other clinic" was his buddy Blanchard elsewhere in the CAMH building, who continually lied to patients. There has been such an accumulation of complaints by parents and patients over those two that they had to close Zucker's clinic down and take away Blanchard's monopoly on referrals..The government also passed legislation banning anyone from using Zuckers' methods on children.

Before this latest scandal, CAMH was the only clinic that could grant authorization for surgeries. Now a patient will need two recommendations from qualified physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, psychologists or registered social workers who have the appropriate training. Nobody is going to go to CAMH when everywhere is now is able to grant approvals much faster and with less hassle.

In other words, the article you quoted is irrelevant. The world has moved on. The government does not want any more of what they called unethical and abusive conversion therapy on children - not from Zucker, not from anyone else. Not even by church "practitioners." Freedom of religion doesn't cover freedom to break the law, so all those churches that used to push gay conversion therapy for children and teens are also out of that business. Now back to basics.

Again, what do you fear so much about transsexuals that you can't even call them by their names? That's what started this thread, and you keep giving excuses that make no sense, then try to change the focus of the conversation. What is your excuse for being rude to transsexuals. Do you do that to everyone else?

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

In other words, the article you quoted is irrelevant. The world has moved on. The government does not want any more of what they called unethical and abusive conversion therapy on children - not from Zucker, not from anyone else.

Except if you actually read what I mentioned, that's not what anybody accused him of, except for the PC police.

Again, what do you fear so much about transsexuals that you can't even call them by their names?

Who? Bradley Manning? Bruce Jenner? Actually about that -- I refer to everybody by names I've known them as for a long time. That includes my sister who legally changed her name (and still remains her birth gender, by the way.) That also includes that total douchebag Brianna Wu, who I've never known by any other name.

That has nothing to do with being trans or anything like that; it's that I think it's a load of crap that somebody can be one thing and then one day wake up and claim to be something/someone else and expect everybody to follow that as if life is world of warcraft on an RP server where one you hop on an alt, you're suddenly a new identity with a new personality (and yes, I'm also annoyed by RPers.) And don't think your special because that includes this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Much in the same as that woman wants to be a cat and might pick up the mannerisms of a cat, at the end of the day she's a woman. Likewise much as you pick up the mannerisms of a woman, you still are a man, and even debate just like one.

That offends you? Honestly, that's your problem, not mine.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

The woman who wanted to be a cat has nothing to do with transsexuals. We've been able to demonstrate, and the APA has accepted, that transsexuality is not a mental condition. In other words, it's a physical problem that causes undue stress that can be relieved by transitioning. It's all there in the latest version of the DSM.

So why do you keep on bringing up examples that have noting to do with the actual topic? Because you have a problem.

If you were born with one eye, that would be a physical condition. It too would cause mental distress. The fix for the mental stress is not therapy to help you accept that you have only one eye - it's changing you physically - giving you a glass eye. That physical change relieves a lot of the mental stress because it lets you be who you should have been except for that missing eye.

It's the same reason why many men who have only one testicle get a silicone implant - so that they won't be embarrassed in the locker room, on the beach, or in the bedroom. Fixing the physical condition removes the mental stress.

Doctors now say that it's what transsexuals have been saying since the 1950's - that it's not mental. So changing sex is the proper treatment for this, same as the glass eye is - it removes the mental anguish caused by a physical condition.

And yet you pick this hill to wage a war on. Why? What are you afraid of? There's no rational reason not to just accept it and move on. It's not something that affects you personally, so why would you even care? But it really, really bothers you, obviously. To the point that you act more like a monkey flinging poo to distract from the underlying question - why can't you call someone by their legitimate, legal name, when so many others have no problem with it? What is there about what someone who you don't even know and never will know that puts such a bug up your arse?

You have a problem.

Also, saying I debate like a man - I'm the one who keeps on getting back to the main topic, that for some reason you have a problem using Chelsea Manning's real, legal name, and instead are indulging in the delusion that Bradley Manning still exists. Anyone who knows enough about transsexuals will tell you that "Bradley" never really existed - it was a cover.

So, I keep returning to the main point, and you keep on throwing all sorts of irrelevancies as distractions. You're like the little boy who, when caught with his hands in the cookie jar, tries everything they can to distract mom from the fact that you got caught. Mom still wants to discuss your stealing cookies, and talking about other people doing other stuff that is not directly relevant, such as Johnny getting caught stealing from the store, or that someone else steals cookies all the time (even though almost nobody else does, and pointing out an exception is an irrelevant distracton).

So, if I'm debating like a man, you must be debating like a woman. But again, saying my style of debate is like a man's is sexist. It's stereotyping, and it's not even valid. Women are quite capable of holding people's feet to the fire because we DON'T let you BS your way out of things that easily. There's even a biological basis for this - males are 3x as likely to have ADHD. I keep coming back to the point that started all this - you keep getting distracted. If anything, I'm debating like a woman and you're debating like a man. And if you don't believe it, try cheating on a woman - no amount of bs will distract her from the issue which is that you cheated. Even Shakespeare knew this - "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

In summary, you are bothered by this even though it has nothing to do with you personally, and you'd rather act antisocial to avoid examining why this is a problem that you have. You have consistently blamed transsexuals for your inability to accept reality, that from before birth we were never really capable of being who you think we should have been, and move on.

If you have proof that transsexuality is a mental diso

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

The cat woman is irrelevant. Can't get that through your head, can you? Whether she has a mental condition or not makes no difference. The point is (and again, stop trying to change the topic like a little boy caught with their hand in a cookie jar) you refuse to call Chelsea Manning by her legal name. Your excuse is stupid - "That's how I first knew him." That's the same excuse rednecks use to keep calling black people niggers - "That's how I first knew them."

I'm left eye dominant while being right handed,

Big shit. There are plenty of people who are left-handed, but right eye dominant. Like me. I don't consider that a problem.

As for the presumption of you being a man, women generally don't have much of a problem with transsexuals. It's a "guy" thing. Studies have shown in court that the men who most strongly resist anything outside the male sex/female sex divide are, deep down, repressed gays. Like you. You doth protest too much.

So, keep on being like the racists who insist on calling black people names, because to a transsexual it's the same damn thing. In the end, it doesn't matter, because you'll never meet me, and if you do, and you insist on publicly misgendering me, I will have you before the courts like I did 2 other times. You see, your opinion doesn't matter - you can tell it to the judge, you'll still lose, just like they did. The only exception the next time is I'm going to collect my $20k moral damages, just like others have done, instead of just a public apology. Time for bigots like you to pay up or shut up.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

The cat woman is irrelevant. Can't get that through your head, can you? Whether she has a mental condition or not makes no difference.

Yup, and while you're at it, also totally disregard my point about you not having any idea why (from a medical standpoint) Manning chose to get a sex change that makes you sure that he deserves to get free surgery while in prison. And yes, that is the heart of the issue, which you keep dodging, in addition to the simple fact that US prisons don't provide cosmetic surgeries. Let's also disregard that when somebody has these kinds of surgeries, the cavity they create, absent of routine maintenance, tries to heal up like the wound that it is by all medical definitions of the term.

you refuse to call Chelsea Manning by her legal name.

I don't call my sister by her legal name either, and people rarely call me by my legal name. I'm not sure what you're getting at?

That's the same excuse rednecks use to keep calling black people - "That's how I first knew them."

I haven't heard any rednecks use that word in recent memory. In fact I hear it the most from black people. Rednecks are kind of fun to hang out with though, except for when they watch nascar which bores the fuck out of me.

Big shit. There are plenty of people who are left-handed, but right eye dominant. Like me. I don't consider that a problem.

Probably because you sit at a computer all day. I try to get outdoors though, and it does somewhat negatively impact my ability to do skeet shooting. Same with my chronic kidney disease, which is responsible for my anemia. Speak of which, I've had three people who I've known for less than 5 months offer to donate a kidney to me when the time comes that I need it, without me even asking. When I ask why, they say I come off as a really nice guy. But I kind of doubt anybody would do the same for you, because you're kind of a dick, to be honest. In fact, these same people would probably stop hanging out with you once they found you forcing your morality on them.

As for the presumption of you being a man, women generally don't have much of a problem with transsexuals. It's a "guy" thing. Studies have shown in court that the men who most strongly resist anything outside the male sex/female sex divide are, deep down, repressed gays. Like you. You doth protest too much.

My girlfriend was telling me that she liked how thick my beard was, but that she was also into long hair and that while she was cool with mine being short and thin (I've shaved my head to almost nothing since I was 16 years old) she's more attracted to longer hair, but she's about 8 years older than me and was a teenager in the 80's whereas I was born in 1982. Somehow that got me into one of my typical "sciency" moments where I talked about how testosterone actually causes most males to lose their hair, and ones with thicker hair tend to have thinner beards due to producing less of it. I then drove the point home by mentioning, very matter of factly and without any bias, how female to male trans grow a beard by injecting testosterone. You know what her reaction was? "Oh that's gross."

Oh and look at that? I trashed two of your arguments in one stone. Also if I hated gays, I probably wouldn't have paid to see James Rhandi's documentary, which I knew well before seeing it that it had a strong pro-gay-marriage message. The only gays I get annoyed with are the ultra femmy ones, (think Richard Simmons) but even other gays get annoyed with them so I don't think that makes me somehow hateful or bigoted.

So, keep on being like the racists who insist on calling black people names

Yep, obviously I'm a racist because I dare to utter the name "Bradley Manning", herp derp.

You see, your opinion doesn't matter - you can tell it to the judge, you'll still lose, just like they did. The o

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Manning was diagnosed before al this. His CO knew about it and it wasn't an issue. It's no longer DADT - it's up to each commanding officer to handle it as they so choose. Of course you have a problem with that, because that doesn't fit your narrative. The diagnosis was made 16 years ago.

SRS isn't considered cosmetic surgery. However, the US certainly does provide cosmetic surgery to reduce the appearance of wounds, burns, etc.

If it impacts your coordination, that's your problem. For many people, it doesn't. Of course, it also helps that, unlike you, I can use either hand for most tasks.

As for kidney donations, I've already offered. Turns out the patient was too sick to survive the surgery at the time, and I'm now past the age of donation. Go donate a kidney, then we'll talk.

Also, while testosterone does make trans men grow a beard, it doesn't cause them hair loss. So much for "trashing my arguments." And what does ANY of this have to do with calling Manning by her legal name? If the military can do it, why can't you? Not man enough?

Come on up here and say it to my face and I'll have the cops on your ass in minutes. Here we have laws against hate speech. Not my fault that you're the only G8 country that has to catch up, same as in so many things.

And how exactly am I a bigot? I have not one time demonstrated any kind of intolerance.

Simple - you refuse to refer to someone by their legal name because of their birth sex. That's bigotry.

Go watch Transparent - it's a shit show that will reinforce all your prejudices.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

Manning was diagnosed before al this. His CO knew about it and it wasn't an issue. It's no longer DADT - it's up to each commanding officer to handle it as they so choose. Of course you have a problem with that, because that doesn't fit your narrative. The diagnosis was made 16 years ago.

I'm still not hearing any evidence for an underlying cause, which still means that in fact you have no idea.

SRS isn't considered cosmetic surgery.

And yet it is, by your own admission, by definition a cosmetic surgery.

If it impacts your coordination, that's your problem. For many people, it doesn't. Of course, it also helps that, unlike you, I can use either hand for most tasks.

When firing a weapon, I can use both hands to a reasonable degree, but still it would be best if I could use my right hand, because when holding and steadying the weapon it takes precise coordination in more muscles than just those in your arm.

As for kidney donations, I've already offered. Turns out the patient was too sick to survive the surgery at the time, and I'm now past the age of donation. Go donate a kidney, then we'll talk.

I've had kidney disease for practically my entire adult life, which means I can't even be a living donor for other organs, like liver. I've been donating blood since I was a teenager however, and only recently stopped when it was advised that I have chronic anemia.

Also, while testosterone does make trans men grow a beard, it doesn't cause them hair loss.

I didn't say that it causes hair loss, rather that it does in most cases. And guess what:

http://www.ftmguide.org/hairlo...

So you're quite wrong here. And look at that, I seem to know the science of gender differences better than you do.

So much for "trashing my arguments."

The thing is, I haven't met any girls that aren't grossed out by it, nor am I somehow a repressed gay.

And what does ANY of this have to do with calling Manning by her legal name? If the military can do it, why can't you? Not man enough?

I've already explained this, and furthermore it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a man. Oh wait, but remember how you said that men are more likely to not accept that viewpoint? So you're very much contradicting yourself.

Come on up here and say it to my face and I'll have the cops on your ass in minutes. Here we have laws against hate speech. Not my fault that you're the only G8 country that has to catch up, same as in so many things.

Except nothing I've said can be considered hateful. You on the other hand have said plenty of hateful things against not only myself, but rednecks and Americans.

Oh what's that? Those aren't considered hateful because those aren't "protected" by your hate laws? How hypocritical, which is the first problem with "hate" laws. The second problem is that they can and do end up being abused to silence political speech. We're not behind in this regard at all, in fact I'd say we're rather ahead. People have the right to be assholes, the fact that you believe otherwise is why I call you an evil Mr Rogers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Watch that movie if you haven't. Anyways, you're an asshole, just a self righteous one, and somehow that makes you think you're legitimate and I'm not. You're quite wrong though. In fact you are by all definitions a bigot.

Simple - you refuse to refer to someone by their legal name because of their birth sex. That's bigotry.

No, it's not bigotry. Again, let me quote the definition of bigotry:

Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Now explain to me, how are you NOT a bigot? You keep dodging this question and I'd like to hear your answer.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

I already gave the underlying biological cause of transsexuality plenty of times, both in this article and elsewhere. Not my fault if you are far too stupid to read the comments or even look for any of the recent research into epigenetics or development of the brain in the uterine environment. If you REALLY wanted to know, you would not have cherry-picked from studies that have since been debunked, or researchers who have since been disgraced.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Also, why is it my job to convince you, when the majority agrees with me? You're the one with the opinion not backed up by either practice or evidence? When the military, the courts, and the majority of the population disagrees with you, you're the one with the burden of proof.

And yes, here purposefully and repeatedly misgendering someone (which is what you've been doing with Manning) is considered a crime. Not only does it fall afoul of defamation laws, but it's also sexual harassment. Would you like to go on THAT list? It can be arranged - just come on up.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

First of all, stop dodging the question already: What makes you believe that you are not a bigot, given you fit the literal definition of one?

I already gave the underlying biological cause of transsexuality plenty of times, both in this article and elsewhere.

And there it is again, the same explanation that can't explain FTM transexuality, nor can it explain cases like Sam Hashimi, and I'm sure it can't explain many others as well.

And yet, without any evidence of it, you declare that Bradley Manning has a female brain? And you wonder why I say you're kind of dumb, or if not that, naive. Furthermore, without any evidence, you seem to claim that this is the prevailing cause for MTF trans. Although I believe psychology is on the right track, people like you are exactly why it has so many critics.

Also, why is it my job to convince you

Nobody asked you to; the fact that you're on a moral crusade is your own business.

when the majority agrees with me?

What majority? I don't live in the same country as you, so surely you're talking about the whole world, in which case you're likely wrong as most of the world doesn't view things from a western perspective. And while it may be a prevailing western opinion, prevailing opinion doesn't mean the same thing as majority. Furthermore, I'm not just going to adopt an opinion just because it's a majority one. The majority western opinion is also that organic food is without a doubt better for you than conventional food, yet the science very clearly says otherwise (specifically, no evidence that it's better, some evidence that it may be worse.)

When the military, the courts,

If the courts said homosexuality was a crime, would they be correct?

and the majority of the population disagrees with you, you're the one with the burden of proof.

Speak of proof, prove that the majority population disagrees with me. Also prove to me that having a female brain represents the sole or even the majority cause of why a man wants to be a woman. These are things you keep claiming repeatedly without any evidence.

In fact, it's funny because I've already proven that, at least in a few respects, I know more about the science behind this than you do, namely how I mentioned that ftm trans can and do end up with male pattern baldness, as is triggered by testosterone, something which you promptly denied and were obviously wrong about.

Also I think what's the most telling is that in spite of the fact that you meet the textbook definition of a bigot, and I do not, you keep labeling me as one.

And yes, here purposefully and repeatedly misgendering someone (which is what you've been doing with Manning) is considered a crime.

I honestly don't care dude. Although Canadians always come to where I live (Phoenix) I really have no interest at all in going to Canada; in fact I really can't stand the cold and the closest I'd go to Canada is Alaska because I have a slight interest in climbing Denali. Just as much as I'm sure it's a crime to be a non-Muslim in Mecca, it really doesn't bother me as I have no interest in going there either.

Furthermore, this would be as absurd as me inviting you to any one of the 82 countries where homosexuality is illegal.

Honestly you're behaving like a 10 year old.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

The majority of the world agrees with me, including China, India, Muslim countries, and the West, not you. Suck it up, buttercup.

this would be as absurd as me inviting you to any one of the 82 countries where homosexuality is illegal.

And again we have a loser! Again, you don't know what you're talking about. 50% of male-to-female transsexuals are straight, and as long as your birth certificate, passport, and all other documentation says female, what's the problem? Not like some american states that change the original sex marker but also say "amended from male" on new birth certificates.

Iran is VERY trans-friendly, has been ever since Ayatollah Khomenei issued a fatwa declaring transsexual women to be women in Allah's eyes, and to be treated accordingly. Iran even pays for the surgery for its citizens. But again, since I'm not gay (or lesbian), and my papers are in order, I would have no problem travelling to any Muslim country where homosexuality is illegal.

And in India, which has a huge chunk of the world's population, I'm acceptable.

Add the Muslim population, the Indian population, and Europe, and you've got a majority right there, even without counting New Zealand, Australia,

etc. And now even China allows adults over 20 to get a sex change. Then they updated the law to allow minors as well, and legally change their gender so that they can marry someone of their old sex without being considered gay.

That's an outright majority of the world's population. Facts, they are a bitch :-)

Also,. the bathroom bills are unenforceable because they would require profiling, which the supreme court has ruled is illegal in the enforcement of laws. Either you set up guards to demand to see EVERY person's birth certificate, or you can't ask for it "because you're suspicious."

Only idiots and fools insist on fighting a battle that's already lost. If you want, though, you can find plenty of people who agree with you in the shithole known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Nigeria, or Somalia. Even North Korea does sex changes.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

I like how you constantly dodge the question of why you can't explain how you think that you aren't a bigot. I've directly asked you four times now. You're even worse than a politician.

I also like how you completely fail at the science behind this and dodge all of my questions calling attention to that fact.

And most of all, I like how I'm apparently not the only one who can see just how transparent you are:

https://slashdot.org/comments....

The majority of the world agrees with me, including China, India, Muslim countries, and the West, not you. Suck it up, buttercup.

And you base this on absolutely nothing, and I say nothing because you've offered not a shred of evidence to show any numbers.

And again we have a loser! Again, you don't know what you're talking about. 50% of male-to-female transsexuals are straight, and as long as your birth certificate, passport, and all other documentation says female, what's the problem?

...And you completely missed the point.

And in India, which has a huge chunk of the world's population, I'm acceptable.

By law maybe, but I highly doubt you'd be able to walk around unscathed in most parts of India if they knew what you are. Ditto Iran.

Add the Muslim population, the Indian population, and Europe, and you've got a majority right there, even without counting New Zealand, Australia,

Again, this is based on nothing, and is in fact handwaving.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

You still haven't answered the original question - what is so hard about referring to Chelsea Manning by her legal name?

And as far as India is concerned, transgenders who aren't transsexuals are legally recognized as a "3rd gender." They're safer in India than transsexuals in many parts of the US. And Iran, transsexuals, unlike gays, are accepted because Khomenei made it clear that transsexuals are their new sex, and must be treated as such. You don't go against a fatwa without consequences.

You don't know much about this, just stuff that's been debunked and your own prejudices. Cut the hand-waving and answer the question that started this - why can't you refer to transsexuals by their legal name? Did someone touch you where they shouldn't have when you were a child?

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

You still haven't answered the original question - what is so hard about referring to Chelsea Manning by her legal name?

I already answered it, several times in fact. Anyways I'll just leave this discussion at this point, as I found that I'm not the only one who finds talking to you totally pointless, and we'll let history be the judge, you senile old man.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Actually, you haven't. People who aren't bothered by the whole trans thing just shrug their shoulders and go along with it. You, on the other hand, are extremely vocal in your opposition. You dig up discredited or outright fraudulent "studies" while ignoring anything that disagrees with your narrative. You make up crap like how I wouldn't be safe in the majority of the world because they hate gays, when I'm not gay. You ignore that in 2008, after Khomenei's fatwa, Iran became the sex change capital of the world, with only Thailand doing more, and that Iranian birth certificates are updated to give them full legal status in their new sex - which is way ahead of where many US states are. In short, "the gentleman doth protest too much."

You have several problems. First, you refuse to accept the reality that for most of the world's population, transsexuals are legally recognized and protected. Second, you are obviously heavily invested in a world view that is distorted. It obviously is a serious problem for you to accept, or, like most people, you wouldn't really care enough to try to find reasons to back up your delusion.

The dinosaurs must have been thinking the same thing, to the extent that they could think, when the big one hit and changed the world into something they couldn't survive in, never mind understand.

Maybe you should get your obese body out more. See the world as it really is. The fat has clogged your brain.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

I already addressed the rest of your rant way back, you just ignored it, and as I mentioned I will not rehash it any further. But as for this one...

Maybe you should get your obese body out more. See the world as it really is. The fat has clogged your brain.

Actually I do 5 solid hours of instructor-led nonstop and very intense workout in the gym every week (it's included as part of the rent here,) in addition to a weekly bike ride that is no less than 12 miles, much of it on some steep trails in South Mountain. Sometimes my bike rides are as long as 70 miles if I feel like making it an all afternoon event. I even do it in 115 degree weather in the summer no less (though admittedly it's a dry heat.) Try doing that, Mr. Wildling!

Besides, if I was truly obese and unhealthy, I would be neither eligible nor listed for kidney transplant, as obesity is in fact one of the things that can make you ineligible, which I was ineligible at one point because I had edema which made my legs so huge that they added about 25lbs each worth of water, (it was awful, I couldn't even wear pants or shoes because my legs were THAT big) thus pushing my BMI high enough that I couldn't be listed.

But, 40mg of lasix per day for three weeks solved that problem and I got listed. And, in fact I even had the head transplant surgeon directly tell me that I'm one of the best pre-transplant candidates he's ever had, not only for my physical fitness, but for my knowledge on the subject as well.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Doesn't change the fact you're a huge fat-head.

You already bragged about your workout routine. You don't like being called an obese fat-head, then stop calling people by other than their legal name. Otherwise, you're a big fat hypocrite.

Re: Never

[ArmoredDragon]

You already bragged about your workout routine.

No, I didn't.

You don't like being called an obese fat-head

You can call me whatever you want. Hell, you can even accuse me of being a tranny if you want to. I'm just setting the record straight. Whether or not you or anybody else believes me is inconsequential. And that is because of what I've been saying this entire time:

1. Repeating a lie many times and even getting a majority of people to agree with the lie doesn't make it true.
2. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it true.
3. Repeatedly claiming something to be true, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be true, doesn't make it true.

Likewise, claiming you're a woman doesn't make that true either, even if you honestly believe that to be the case.

Re: Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Sure you did, a couple of months ago. I guess the fat got to your brain.

You've clearly got a bug up your arse if you are willing to so distort the truth as to insist that someone's legal name is a lie. And it doesn't matter what I believe - my birth certificate, etc., are all that counts. You can argue all you want otherwise, but you are distorting reality.

Does the US even want him?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Does the US even want him?

[AHuxley]

AC nobody expects a secret US grand jury investigation.
"EPIC Partially Prevails in FOIA Case, Wikileaks Investigation Ongoing"
https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
US government still hunting WikiLeaks as Obama targets whistleblowers (6 March 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
more at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj...
"The FBI's "still active and ongoing" probe of WikiLeaks" (March 06, 2015)
http://www.courthousenews.com/...
from https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
i.e. "... the Department of Justice and FBI’s multi-subject investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified information published on WikiLeaks, which is “still active and ongoing” and remains in the investigative stage."

Re:Does the US even want him?

[dbIII]

There has been a bit of movement in US legal circles on that but most of it was years ago (when Hillary was in the chair) so that may be why you are not aware of it.

Today vs Yesterday

[bmo]

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

Re:Today vs Yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

Manny was never disappeared. From the minute he was taken into custody his location was known. He was in solidary confinement in the Quantico military base. He was there because he was charged with some serious crimes. He was in solidary under suicide watch. He was also kept away from other military personnel that were also in custody for his protection. For some reason the military, even those in jail, do not tolerate someone who they consider an oath breaker and traitor.

The US could have extradited Assange before he put himself in the Ecuadorian embassy. There is no warrant or ongoing investigation of Assange. Why would the US waste time going after him when they have let Greenwald and company walk around free. The US would have a much better case against Greenwald but they are not going after him.

Snowden cannot be pardoned because he has not been convicted of a crime. The chances of any President bending the rules when it comes to pardons and amnesty is zero.

Manning has a pretty good shot of getting his sentence reduced or getting paroled early. He was clumsy and a little unhinged when he committed his crime. On the other hand Snowden was purposely lied to get into a position for the sole purpose of stealing classified data. In what little universe was he living in where he could steal classified data on foreign intelligence operations and not reap a sizable prison term? His actions, which he has admitted to, meet every requirement for being charged under the Espionage Act. His only argument is that he did it for a good cause which is utter bullshit. That lame excuse might have sufficed if he only released domestic related data but releasing the foreign intelligence programs sealed his fate. Contrary to popular belief the US Foreign Intelligence services are not required to work within the Constitution or Bill of Rights. If some whiny European has a problem with that tough shit because I guarantee their own country does the same damn thing whenever possible. It was the Europeans themselves who collected information that they shared with the US. The US didn't need to waste resources in Europe since they were doing a good enough job all by themselves.

Re:Today vs Yesterday

[bmo]

>Manning isn't disappeared

Just because we know where he is doesn't mean he's not disappeared. When you are put into solitary confinement with no contact with the outside world with no day-night cycle (they keep the lights on all the time) you have been thrown in a hole to be forgotten about.

BTW, long term solitary confinement is torture. Not all torture is physical.

And no, he's not in "protective custody" to prevent other inmates harming him. You can request and get out of protective custody (which is a form of solitary confinement) and people often do to take their chances in general population because pc is so awful.

>Snowden can't be pardoned because he hasn't been convicted.

You don't need to be convicted to get a pardon. Ford pardoned Nixon before any conviction happened. Your argument is invalid.

>The US doesn't want Assange evidenced by the fact that Greenwald is free

Greenwald is an old-school journalist and thus protected in the court of public opinion as well as by precedent. Assange isn't. Assange has been bad-mouthed enough that the general public doesn't give a shit about him and probably thinks he "deserves whatever happens to him." Going after Greenwald is a non-starter. Going after Assange will get someone promoted.

>Contrary to popular belief the US Foreign Intelligence services are not required to work within the Constitution or Bill of Rights

US foreign intelligence isn't supposed to spy on US citizens. That's a violation of my rights as a citizen. Fuck you for defending this.

How do those boots taste?

--
BMO

Re:Today vs Yesterday

[h33t l4x0r]

Today? The possibility that anyone would get a fair shake in a courtroom is laughable.

Too true. Those damned Mexican judges.

Re:Today vs Yesterday

[dbIII]

Snowden cannot be pardoned because he has not been convicted of a crime

Nixon, Libby, North and so on - the list is long of people who were pardoned before conviction.

Re:Today vs Yesterday

[slashdot_commentator]

Snowden cannot be pardoned because he has not been convicted of a crime.

Of course the PotUS can pardon him without Snowden having a conviction. Nixon wasn't even charged with a crime before Ford pardoned him.

Re:Today vs Yesterday

[houghi]

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
  We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

If only this were just a script in a movie.

Re:Today vs Yesterday

[Dread_ed]

For some reason the military, even those in jail, do not tolerate someone who they consider an oath breaker and traitor.

That reason couldn't be a reduced sentence for proving your loyalty to your superiors on the outside, could it? It would never occur to a military or political leader to order one prisoner to attack another prisoner in return for a reduction in charges, would it? It's obvious that military and political leaders who engage in illegal activities will, once exposed by a whistle blower, meekly submit themselves to the law, make a full confession of all possible illegal or even questionable activities they engaged in, and throw themselves on the mercy of the American public, right? They would never, ever, ever try to cover up their activities or attempt to punish a whistle blower. No...no way, no how. Uh uhh. Nooooooooo. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo! /sarcasm

Manning? Really?

[JustNiz]

I'm surprised that he chose Manning and not Snowden.

Re:Manning? Really?

[guises]

Assange has a connection to Manning (allegedly). Snowden has nothing to do with Assange.

Re:Manning? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chelsea is very unlikely to be raped at all, let alone daily.

His guards probably harass him in much more creative ways than the ones which have some prayer of getting sympathy for him.

They stuck that kid in a hole in the ground and are making it their personal lives' mission to show how miserable life can get without breaking any rules in the process. They would never do something as idiotic as sexually assaulting him and risk having their little slice of righteousness enforcement taken away from them.

Without scapegoats to torture, morons only have themselves to blame for their shitty lot in life.

Re:Manning? Really?

[alvinrod]

I doubt they do anything to Manning at all. Isolation and deprivation of human contact is quite enough to drive a person absolutely mad on its own. I wouldn't be surprised if the guards are under strict orders not to talk to her at all. That she tried to commit suicide earlier this year doesn't surprise me at all. One of the former wardens of the United State's supermax prison which has similar isolation for all inmates described it as something like hell. About the only thing worse than that without physically assaulting a person is sleep deprivation for extended periods, which will get you to own-shit-as-crayon levels of crazy in under a week.

Re:Manning? Really?

[Solandri]

Quid pro quo. The bulk of Wikileaks' files on the U.S. came from Manning. In fact it could be argued that Wikileaks and Assange got most of their fame because of Manning. Snowden has been releasing the files he has via other press outlets.

Re:Manning? Really?

[BarbaraHudson]

There's a HUGE difference between total sleep deprivation and only getting 4 hours of sleep a night. After 3-4 days with no sleep, you start seeing things that aren't there, stop at stop signs waiting for them to turn green, all sorts of fun stuff. Even a couple of hours sleep is enough to fix that for the next day, so don't brag about "only getting 4 hours of sleep" as being the same as no sleep.

What exactly is he asking for?

[kamapuaa]

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?

Re: What exactly is he asking for?

[spyfrog]

Correct. Assange isn't even wanted for anything in the US. So there is no offer to be made from him. Last - he can't be extradited from Sweden as that would be illegal under Swedish and EU law. However, he should leave Britain since he will not be protected by he EU rules there in a couple of years

Re:What exactly is he asking for?

[ClickOnThis]

He is a fugitive from raping two women in Sweden

You have to get "allegedly" into your vocabulary if you want to be a lawyer.
-- from the motion picture Primal Fear

Re: What exactly is he asking for?

[Dog-Cow]

Assange is not a US citizen. He broke no applicable law by publishing the material from Manning.

Re:What exactly is he asking for?

[BarbaraHudson]

He had already been on hormones before this all started (2000).

Pentagon papers

[sjbe]

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.

indefinite solitary confinement

[wjcofkc]

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.

Not indicted

[Geoffrey.landis]

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?

Re:Not indicted

[jellomizer]

He is just a paranoid nut who thinks just because he doesn't like the US that the US wants him captured.
In terms of US he just posted stolen information. Then the US news repeated it. Manning is the real criminal stealing the data to begin with.

Re:Not indicted

[FlyHelicopters]

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.

You actually don't know that... there are "secret warrants" and sealed indictments...

He may well be wanted but the government just won't admit it...

Re: Not indicted

[BarbaraHudson]

Russia is far from being part of the 3rd world. China too. Times have changed.

Re:Not indicted

[dbIII]

You actually don't know that... there are "secret warrants" and sealed indictments...

It wasn't very secret.

He may well be wanted but the government just won't admit it...

Some years ago it was. Even Hillary said a few things to the press on the matter.

Re: Not indicted

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia never belonged to the third world by the very definition of that trrm.

Re: Not indicted

[BarbaraHudson]

The poster I was replying to claimed otherwise. I was just correcting them.

Re: Not indicted

[BarbaraHudson]

Brazil is a shithole. Sanitation and health are way down on the list of priorities. The sewer systems that were supposed to be built, weren't. Hospitals lack basics like syringes and rubber gloves. Teachers are quitting because they aren't being paid, so the next generation is at risk. And it's just going to get worse.

This quote says it all for me

[JustNiz]

"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

Re:This quote says it all for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously saying the government shouldn't be allowed to have secrets? Only on Slashdot would that be modded up.

Re:This quote says it all for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously??? WTF, are you mentally deficient? the "secrets" they are holding pertain to them breaking federal law and violating your constitutional rights.

Dumb-ass.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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?

He's just showboating

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:He's just showboating

[quax]

Nicely summarized. If I had mod points I'd vote this up.

Re:He's just showboating

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"?"

This absolutely is it. I think he left Sweden because he was allowed to, rather than fleeing, and the charges appeared afterwards, but if he really feared extradition to the USA over Wikileaks, he would have gone _anywhere_ but the UK at that point; it's not as if there was anything particularly new on the US front.

The entirety of his argument seems to be that he is worried that he might go from being detained in Sweden on remand, directly to a court, and then directly to an extradition cell in a form of rendition before he was processed out, innocent or guilty. There's a suggestion that the swedish prosecutor in question is politically motivated, but would she even have that power?

Re:He's just showboating

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you left out the important fact that he stated he was more than willing to accept extradition to Sweden so long as they did not hand him over to the US when he got there at which point they refused. That is a huge point you missed.

Also, you missed the point that he didn't flee the country to avoid charges as none of that happened till after he was gone and even then he never was facing charge in Sweden either only questioning.

And he happily offered to do the questioning over the phone or they could send someone to him to question him which they had done before but refused to do specifically for him and would only question him if he came to Sweden after they already refused his request to guarantee they wouldn't hand him over to the US.

You also neglect the point where the girls who made the claim did so the direction of others in government and then dropped the claim only to have the government pick it up and continue the claims against their wishes.

These are huge, deal breaking, points you neglected in your post.

Re:He's just showboating

[Xest]

Not that I'm defending him, but there are some issues with your points, particularly context is important.

Part the reason you have to understand why someone might think the UK is safer than Sweden is because it was at a point at which public distaste for the UK's extradition treaty was at an all time high over cases such as the McKinnon case, extradition of Assange would've tipped it over the edge and have gotten the British public to force the whole treaty to be torn up. I suspect he saw a lot of political merit in trying to force that.

He went to Sweden I believe before he thought there was a threat of extradition to the US, the charges against him were raised, then dropped and he was told he was free to leave the country, at which point he went to the UK (in large part because he had a lot of high profile celebrity friends here). The charges were then raised again in Sweden after he'd been told he was free to live.

So whilst I'm not really disputing the rest of it, the questions you raise are easily answered in the context of the case at the time.

Re:It's Bradley, not Chelsea, you fucktards!

[BarbaraHudson]

It doesn't work that way, Scooter. Otherwise, there'd be more trans hockey, football and soccer players. not to mention priests.

Re:He should have asked for a Snowden pardon

[BarbaraHudson]

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!

Nice attention whoring.

[quax]

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.

Re:Nice attention whoring.

[quax]

Sweden wants to question him with regards to improper sexual conduct, this is common, on the record knowledge.

The nature of the charge has also been widely reported and confirmed by interviews with the women (who are not particular interested in seeing this blown out of proportion).

The dude had consensual sex, yet it was supposed to be protected sex, and he sneakily removed the condom. Sweden has very strict laws around consensual sexual conduct, so if he did indeed do this on purpose, and tricked the women, it amounts to an offense under Swedish law.

That he holes up in an embassy over this rather minor legal problem is laughable.

Re:Nice attention whoring.

[quax]

Everyone's hero?

Right ...

Snowden I respect, Assange on the other hand is over the top paranoid, and you seem to share that sentiment.

Dishonest

[s.petry]

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.

Re:Dishonest

[Dread_ed]

Thank you for the very accurate description of the underlying issues with Assange and his "extradition" to Sweden.

That you were modded down is indicative of the problems with stating the truth. Someone who knows the truth, but feels it is an impediment to their false narrative, will ultimately want to bury the information. If I had mod points I would try to un-bury your post.

The problem....

[DewDude]

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.

Re:The problem....

[dbIII]

So what do you want done to the spooks that Manning exposed who were selling little boys to warlords to use as sex slaves?

In comparison to what was revealed Manning is a saint.

Re:The problem....

[BarbaraHudson]

For many, death would be better than the prospect of 35 years in solitary.

Never say Never

[frovingslosh]

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.

Re:Never say Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Obama might even give it a metal (sic).

Manning is not an "it." That's the ultimate "objectification" of her.

Re:Never say Never

[BarbaraHudson]

Language works the way people use it. "He" is the correct pronoun to use for someone born with a penis. That has not yet changed, despite your attempts to make it so.

Fortunately, the courts disagree with you. Here continuing to refer to someone as "he" after they've started to transition (before or after surgery) is classified as sexual harassment. You're harassing someone based on their previous sex.

There are a few trans judges around. Why don't you give it a try and see if you can avoid contempt of court.

Re:Never say Never

[Archangel Michael]

And Rachel Dolezal is "black" .. got it.

Re:Never say Never

[clonehappy]

Not sure, but trust me this isn't the only forum "she" shits on. And on the others "she" gets banned, creates new accounts, and then is right back at it. It's a joke.

Re:Never say Never

[vel-ex-tech]

This person is my go to example of what a man is.

Better not fap to him or you're gay!

Re:Never say Never

[BarbaraHudson]

No, she was pulling a fraud to take improper advantage of minority grants and programs.

Re:Never say Never

[BarbaraHudson]

You are SO full of crap. Go change your Depends. Or not. You probably like it dirty. Point out ONE place I've been banned (that will be hard, because I don't post much anywhere else. For example, I haven't posted anywhere else since August 11th, because I've come to the conclusion that anyone who believes Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) was being waaaay over-optimistic. I'd be happy if the whole web disappeared tomorrow, because it's done more harm than good. Of course, that would mean you wouldn't be able to BS about me, but that's just an added bonus :-)

Re:Never say Never

[BarbaraHudson]

There are a few trans judges around

That's unfortunate. It shows just how far our once-great nation has fallen down.

I agree. There should be more - that's one group that is under-represented on the bench. But you can always go to Canada to escape ... except that Canada has trans judges as well. Cuba? Nah, they pay for the surgeries. Iran? Nah, they pay for the surgeries as well. Why not just admit you are 100% in agreement with ISIS.

Re:Never say Never

[BarbaraHudson]

This is a US judge. Or didn't you know that Leavenworth is in the US? "Some judge in some country" can't do it, unless that country is the USA because Manning is an American.

Re:Never say Never

[david_thornley]

I have a basic principle here. I usually call people what they want me to, which is usually their name. Their name was not fixed as of the birth certificate, but can be changed (formally or informally) afterwards. Similarly, if I don't know what sex someone is and it becomes important, I go by what they identify as. Typically, this is male or female depending on brain structure, but I've also met some who identified as non-binary. I consider this basic politeness in social discourse.

Re:GRS?

[frovingslosh]

I think we should give that a try.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:GRS?

[BarbaraHudson]

SRS (Sex Reassignment Surgery), GRS (Gender Reassignment Surgery), GAS (Gender Affirming Surgery), they all mean the same thing. The newer terms came to the fore to de-emphasize the "sex" part. And no, gender is not a psychological construct. It's embedded in the physical - otherwise there would be no need for SRS. The perception of being wrong-gendered is due to the development of the brain before birth, and that's controlled by the expression of the genes of the fetus, same as everything else.

The attempt to separate gender and sex is a bit of political correctness. The term "sexual identity" is more appropriate - the sex you identify with. There's no need to abuse words to be politically correct, to try to make an artificial difference between the sex you identify as and the gender you identify as - ask a transsexual and both questions get the same answer, male (female-to-male) or female (male-to-female). Not "agender", not "cross-dresser", not "gender-fluid", not "gender-fucked". The rest of the lgbtqiiac-whatever alphabet soup is not dealing with a person who identifies as a sex other than what they physically are that can be fixed by hormones, therapy, surgery, etc. Theirs is simply not a medical problem, and as such, there's no cure and no need for one, any more than a "cure" for being straight or gay.

The proper term for lgb-whatever would be sexual expression - straight, gay, etc. How you express your sexuality. But we don't live in a perfect world. As one example, transgender and transsexual used to mean the same thing - someone who identified as the opposite sex. Then a cross-dresser going under the name of Victoria Prince appropriated "transgender" to describe male cross-dressers, and published a monthly magazine targeted at the lgbt community to push the term. His idea (I use "he" because he always identified as male) wrote that even when dressed as the opposite sex, transvestites don't lose their maleness, which is "part of the thrill". Now we have everyone being unclear of what individual terms mean.

For example, most people assume that male-to-female transsexuals would become lesbians if they were straight before. It doesn't work that way - 1/2 are straight as females, 1/3 are bisexual, and only 1/6 are lesbians. But such has been the appropriation of transsexuals by the lgbt community (because if you blur the line between transsexuals and cross-dressers, the cross-dressers, many of whom are gay and btw really enjoy beating up on transsexuals on-line) benefit from the "halo" of medical approval transsexuals enjoyed long before being gay became acceptable, that people are surprised to find this out.

Like everything else in life, it's complicated. More complicated than it needs to be.

Re:HOLy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[sexconker]

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.

Re:HOLy crap

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

um, Manning? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:um, Manning? Really?

[dwillden]

Correct: Assange is not wanted by the US for any criminal activities. He did not violate any classified handling procedures or laws. He was not responsible for the release, that all falls 100% on Manning, who as you correctly noted had voluntarily signed the contract binding him to the UCMJ. A firing squad was a vialble outcome for him.

Assange is a pest and a thorn in the side of the US but they don't have anything they can legally go after him for. Nor have they every indicated any intention to prosecute or even conduct rendition on him. The US Government doesn't like him but he is not suspected of any violation of any law the US has that could be imposed on him.

Re:It's Bradley, not Chelsea, you fucktards!

[BarbaraHudson]

Gitmo wasn't on US soil expressly because neither US law nor the Constitution apply there. Ditto Abu Ghraib, etc.

Feckless Censors

[s.petry]

I realize my opinion bothers you, but instead of your insistence on censorship why not provide reasonable arguments against people you censor? Feckless.

Military Perversion

[JimSadler]

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.

Re:It's Bradley, not Chelsea, you fucktards!

[dbIII]

Gitmo wasn't on US soil expressly because neither US law nor the Constitution apply there. Ditto Abu Ghraib, etc.

That's what they pretended anyway, and since they got away with it that may as well be true.
Try breaking a US law in such a place and people will find the law does apply to individuals despite being waived when inconvenient to the government.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Dog-Cow]

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?

Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five

[Joce640k]

...a 2010 rape charge

a) He hasn't been charged with anything
b) It isn't "rape" he's wanted for questioning over.

Re:HOLy crap

[h33t l4x0r]

Believe it or not, US courts have already ruled that an usolicited finger in the anus is not a crime.

Wow the CIA has really screwed up that privates

[SadButResolved]

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

Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five

[swillden]

a) He hasn't been charged with anything

Only because he can't be charged in absentia.

b) It isn't "rape" he's wanted for questioning over.

Sweden says it is. Specifically, it's a lesser degree of rape which doesn't involve violence but still includes non-consensual intercourse. I suppose your scare quotes are because this doesn't meet the your definition of rape?

Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five

[BarbaraHudson]

Sweden doesn't charge you unless you are present to defend yourself.

Why can't idiots learn that?

And they've been given ample opportunity to question him before deciding whether or not lay charges, which they should be doing as part of their investigation, but aren't, because this is politically motivated.

Re:Ah, the warped "reasoning" of the LGBTQZN warri

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

Re:HOLy crap

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:Ah, the warped "reasoning" of the LGBTQZN warri

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

another reason to vote Clinton

[vel-ex-tech]

Searched for this comment specifically. Was not disappointed.

That is all.

Re:Assange is a punkass

[kjshark]

I agree. Assange has said on TV that he has dirt on Clinton that he will release in due time. If he has it why not release it now? It has to be because he wants to time the release to do as much damage as possible to the Clinton campaign or he doesn't really have it. Either way, Assange is crossing the line from freedom of information fighter to attempted spoiler of a political campaign in service to his personal grudge.

Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five

[swillden]

He quotes it because the evidence better supports trumped-up charges.

The charges may be trumped up, but that doesn't change the nature of the alleged offense which is rape, per Swedish law.

Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five

[Cederic]

Thank you for that completely fucking irrelevant piece of information.

Given that Assange was questioned in Sweden prior to leaving the country and prosecutors deemed there to be no charge to answer, I think it's pretty fucking valid to point out that he hasn't been charged with anything.

Re:GRS?

[Cederic]

the cross-dressers, many of whom are gay and btw really enjoy beating up on transsexuals on-line

Nearly as much as transsexuals enjoy demeaning and making derogatory statements about cross-dressers and transvestites (who are, just for the record, predominantly straight).

Re:Rape

[Cederic]

Sadly we can't tell, because the court hearing that would properly determine and adjudicate on this has not been possible to hold.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

The rest of the docs were just collateral damage :-) If the military can use that excuse, so can Manning.

Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five

[BarbaraHudson]

He has stated "I will answer questions, but I will set the conditions, I will set the locations, I will set the time and date

Are you talking about Assange or Clinton?

Re:GRS?

[BarbaraHudson]

I never said that cross-dressers and transvestites are gay - I used the word "many", which is true, and that many of the gay ones delight in transsexual-baiting.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

He'll always be Bradley to me.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:OMG! No one was talking about Assange for five

[david_thornley]

For those who dislike Swedish law, it's also rape under UK law, or the extradition would have been denied.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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 :-)

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[david_thornley]

[The name change is] 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".

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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?

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

Because they all look so much like men NOT! Plenty of women would kill to look like her.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

Ever see the Adam's apple on Anne Coulter? The man hands?

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 ...

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

Come on, it's clearly visible in the second picture. See how it comes to a point?

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[Raenex]

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.

Re:You Mispelled "Bradley Manning"

[BarbaraHudson]

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.