jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (41 posts)

Bradley Manning. Really?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    I haven't seen this discussed so will bring it up.
    Do you agree with sentence of 35 years in prison?
    Apparently Private Manning views himself as a female and wants to be called Chelsea.
    And he demands to start hormone therapy right away.
    Given that the guy (gal?) was just convicted of leaking classified documents and is going to prison for 35 years, do you feel his demand is reasonable? Or chutzpah in the extreme?
    I know it's not very easy and quite expensive to get a sex change in the outside world.
    So what, you go to prison and get the government you betrayed to pay for it???

    I don't get that, and if the government does pay for his sex change we are even more f'd up than I thought. But others may feel differently. I'm eager to read your opinions.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … me-chelsea

    1. MikeSyrSutton profile image44
      MikeSyrSuttonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I couldn't agree more. The days of federally funded everything has got to end!

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Really, NOTHING would SURPRISE me anymore.   Life is ONE SURPRISE after ANOTHER it seems.

  2. Zelkiiro profile image85
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    I think JFK said it best: "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society."

    1. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "FREE and OPEN society"? Just an ILLUSION. Manning's condemnation is the proof. At least Snowden is out of their reach!

  3. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    Sounds more and more like a long term scam to get free optional medical care that no one else can afford.

    As such, I would suggest that he be popped into psychiatric care concerning morality and the ethics of betraying trust, coupled with learning how to live in situations you don't like.  This should be coupled with job training, perhaps teaching him to play football.

    In 7 years, parole him and give him the boot.  If he wants a sex change he can pay for it himself.

  4. jenniferrpovey profile image94
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    Wilderness, I would like to introduce you to several people and have you say to their face that gender reassignemtns is "optional medical care."

    Here's a statistic for you: 47% of transsexuals in the United States have, at least once in their lives, *attempted suicide*.

    Learning to live in a situation you don't like? You don't have a clue what it's like for these people. It's a medical condition, not some kind of "desire" or "want."

    Teaching him to play football? That's one of the most transphobic statements I've heard lately. Oh, and as for football making you a real man, tell that to the Washington Divas.

    Did you know that the most important issue in transgender/transsexual society is obtaining the right to use a public RESTROOM without being harassed?

    Oh, and 20% of transsexuals in the United States are either in the military or are veterans. Maybe if the army had treated her better in the first place she wouldn't have done what she did.

    Wilderness, if you were deeply depressed and utterly miserable, if you couldn't look in the mirror without hating your body, if you were constantly confused about your basic sense of IDENTITY would you call the medical treatment "optional"? I have to assume you've never been depressed...

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jennifer, I understand all of that and am actually sympathetic with the plight of people caught in the transgender net.

      What I am NOT sympathetic with is Bradley Manning, who apparently decided that he didn't want to put forth the effort to solve his problem himself, and so gave some 700,000 secret files to US enemies in order to be jailed and get the American public to pay for his desired medical care.

  5. jenniferrpovey profile image94
    jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

    You didn't come over as that at all - you came over as a total transphobe.

    I was doing more research, and it seemed Manning joined the military in the hope they would make her happy being a man - and it backfired. I'm not sure, but from what I'm reading, VA will help with transitioning, but only AFTER discharge. I'm not saying what she did was right, because it wasn't.

    I'm saying that maybe if people treat trans men and women with more understanding and respect, then we could reduce the chance of this happening again. People who feel trapped, unwanted, and unappreciated tend to lash out. I also don't think she did this as a scam. It's hard to tell. Trans people who are in denial, fighting against it, or trying to hide it because of pressure can become very unstable.

    This happened because Manning didn't get the help she needed when she needed it, plain and simple.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As far as I'm concerned, feelings of being in the wrong body have nothing to do with this case. 

      Those feelings do not give Manning the right to risk innocent lives in order to receive treatment that hundreds or thousands of people want but do without.  There is no "backfire" here - Manning didn't get what he wanted and chose a different method of obtaining it.  Nor does he deserve one iota of respect for what he did.

      Had Manning released carefully examined and chosen bits of data in order to publicize perceived wrongs it might be different.  But he didn't - he released everything he could get his hands on and I do respect such foolish and irresponsible actions one bit.  Add in that the motive was not for others, but purely selfish and Manning deserves neither respect nor help with his problem.

      And it didn't happen because Manning didn't get the help he needed; it happened because Manning finds that hurting others in order to achieve personal goals acceptable.

  6. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I think she should be able to use a female name and live as a female, including hormones, pending a psychiatrist's go ahead (as with any cis person needing prescription drugs).  IMHO not allowing people to live according to their gender would be cruel.

    That is just a matter of humane treatment of prisoners IMHO,  regardless of their crime.

  7. innersmiff profile image87
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    An unfortunate irrelevance. Let me re-iterate:


    Repeat it enough times so that your spirit knows it and then we can discuss the issue in a meaningful way.

    1. psycheskinner profile image82
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you want to discuss that, make a thread about that.  Other people are discussing other things, which is a normal event in a forum.

      1. innersmiff profile image87
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is a place on a thread to argue that the issue is irrelevant.

        1. psycheskinner profile image82
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It is relevant to me.  I am the person who gets to decide that.

          1. innersmiff profile image87
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you disagree. I still claim the right to disagree with you!

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ah yes.  Shout anything enough times and loudly enough and it becomes true. 

      Not sure, however, about being able to discuss any such truth in a meaningful way.

      1. innersmiff profile image87
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you deny it?

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Define "intentionally", please.  Do you mean "acceptable but unintended collateral damage" or do you mean a policy of targeting civilians with no known connection to military targets?

  8. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Meanwhile this thread is about whether Manning should be able to live as a female while serving her sentence.

  9. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago

    The gender issue, while NOT irrelevant as to Manning's mental state is indeed irrelevant to the particular offense.  Man or woman, whether in agreement or not with the policies, procedures, and requirements of their particular job, has a responsibility to adhere to them or to choose to do something else.

    IMO, using this defense is a disgusting and reprehensible OFFENSE to any transgender individual.  It basically says that's why Manning chose to violate the law and breach national security.

    Perhaps Manning experienced mental instability as a result of confusion over gender identity, but that is NOT what motivated the violation.

    It is, however, a nice and neat way to try to absolve oneself of any remorse or ownership over poor choices once one has been caught.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't look like it's being used as a defense or excuse for the crime committed.  If it were it would have been offered prior or during the trial.

      It appears more likely to be a cold blooded reason for the crime in that Manning knew his actions would land him in jail where he can ask the American public to pay for sex change surgery.  The timing of the announcement supports this.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The link shows a quote that said it (confusion over gender identity) was "...key to his defense."

        From the AP.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          From http://www.today.com/news/bradley-manni … 6C10974915

          "During his trial, Manning’s defense team suggested his struggles with gender identity as a gay soldier were a factor in his decision to leak"

          "The stress that he was under was mostly to give context to what was going on at the time," Manning's lawyer, David Coombs, told Savannah Guthrie on TODAY Thursday. "It was never an excuse because that's not what drove his actions. What drove his actions was a strong moral compass."

          I don't see those statements as showing it was "key to his defense".  Yesterday, after being sentenced, he went public with a statement to Today (http://www.today.com/news/i-am-chelsea- … 6C10974052).  This is the statement reference in the OP, and that such a statement came ONLY after the trial would indicate that it was not a key to the defense; that there is some other reason to make it. 

          Making it just before going into a prison environment does not make a lot of sense; reactions from other inmates are not likely to be...pleasant.  So why DID he make it?  Truly, it appears to be the beginnings of a long term effort towards surgery and/or massive hormonal and psychological treatment at public expense.

    2. handymanbill profile image63
      handymanbillposted 3 years ago

      I believe that anybody that is incarcerated should have health care. I do not believe that someone who has sexual issues about whether they are a man or a women should be allowed to have sex change operations and hormone treatments while they are incarnated. The tax payers should not have to pay. Now if it was a life threatening treatment then the Government should pay the cost. Having feelings that you are the wrong sex is a problem that is personal and something that as an individual we should have to pay for. It is elective surgery. So should we be paying for facelifts because someone feels they are looking old, like O. J. Simpson?  When he gets out if it is his desire to change his gender then that is his/her choice.

      1. handymanbill profile image63
        handymanbillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As for the sentence from what I have heard he might do 7 years.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He is eligible for parole in 7 years.

        2. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this


          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Never thought you were, Mo. 

            And yes, that quote is from AP.  It also sounds like typical exaggeration from a "news" source looking for readers.

            For the nonce I'll stand by my assessment of his actions.  And unless Manning goes into solitary confinement I predict a very unhappy period for him.  Along with, probably, more lawsuits that society isn't adequately protecting him after he made it quite clear he doesn't give a flip about society.

            1. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's the other thing I came across that had me incensed.  His lawyer basically saying they would force the courts to do what he wants.

              1. MikeSyrSutton profile image44
                MikeSyrSuttonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting points!

      2. aliasis profile image94
        aliasisposted 3 years ago

        Chelsea Manning is a hero. No, I don't have any problem referring to her as a woman, because I am comfortable and don't feel threatened by the existence of transgenderism. If Manning says she identifies as a woman, fine by me. I'm not going to choose anyone's identity for them, and transgenderism is, you know, a real thing.

        What I'm not comfortable with is my government and military shooting down innocent people, including children, Call of Duty style and laughing and complimenting each other during the massacre. If I had been in Manning's position, I would have proudly done the same thing. Manning is a hero for exposing that, and yes, I believe we need more transparency in the government. Sometimes you have a duty to the people, and duty to the world, that overrides your duty to the government.

        I think we should focus on true identity of Manning as a whistleblower. Her transgenderism is her own private business, and I think it's really sad if people distract themselves with that.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          His transgenderism used to be his own private business.  Until he went public with Today news and announced it to the world, demanding that the public provide him with drugs (and probably eventually surgery) he wants but doesn't want to pay for.

          At that point it became the business of every person in the country.

          1. aliasis profile image94
            aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You come across as pretty transphobic, to be honest, insisting on using masculine pronouns when Manning was very clear about her gender identity. So, do you deny the existence of transgenderism then? Because it sounds like you're hitting a much bigger issue than Manning identifying as a woman.

            I've got zero problem with Manning receiving drugs. She ought to be receiving medals of honor, so I figure she can darn well have the drugs that help her be more comfortable in her body. Of all the frivolous things our government and prison system waste money on, I'm more than happy to give inmates health insurance. Transgender people can develop a lot of mental problems, including severe depression, from feeling that their body doesn't match them, and treating those problems leads to even more money down the road, anyway.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Transphobic - why?  Because I recognize that Manning is genetically, physically and sexually a male?  Because his body produces sperm rather than an egg?  Because he has the typical characteristics of a male - body hair, penis, large muscles, etc?

              I do recognize that there is something in his brain that makes him more comfortable in the social setting of a female, but that does not make him female.  It is but one small part of being female and while it is important (extremely so in a social sense) it is not the final word.  The real question is why you insist he is a female in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?  Because he wants to be one?

              Had Manning fought his fight himself he would have received my full support and I might have even supported helping to provide hormonal treatments.  But he didn't.  To my knowledge he has never purchased even a single dose of hormones - instead he wangled a way to get society to provide it for him.  And he did it by causing great potential harm to the society he expects to help him, by intentionally violating the laws of that society and by violating any ethical code he might have once had to keep his word.

              So no, he doesn't get much respect from me and I don't have much desire to help in his fight to turn his body into a better match for his mind.

              As far as providing medical insurance for inmates; no problem there, either.  For basic medical care, not for extremely expensive elective procedures that I, without the financial ability to purchase medical insurance myself, could never afford.  We locked them up (because they refuse to accept the laws everyone else does), we own them basic care in spite of their actions.  Not something far beyond what we can do for ourselves.

              Were I in Mannings shoes, feeling I am a female locked into a male body, I would have to deal with it myself.  Manning can do the same.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image87
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Aliasis. Twenty-five hubs in 2 weeks is commendable. Keep it up!

          Please allow me to interrupt your dialog to point out that hubbers who feel Chelsea Manning is a heroine might disagree with you!

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this



      3. jenniferrpovey profile image94
        jenniferrpoveyposted 3 years ago

        Wilderness, *everything* you have said in this thread has been transphobic to some degree. You have also demonstrated that you simply do not understand trans issues.

        The cross-wiring in Chelsea's brain does not make her "more comfortable in the social setting of a female." It makes her *convinced she is a female* as strongly as you, as a cis (non-transgendered) male KNOW you are male. Can you honestly deny that you don't absolutely know with utter certainty that you are a man? If you don't, then you just might be a little bit genderqueer yourself. It's not about wanting to be a female. It's not about choosing to be a female.

        It's about accepting reality. From the research I have done, Chelsea Manning fought against her transgenderism for years and her motivation for joining the military is that she thought or was pushed into thinking that it would help her be happy as a man. Snag is, if somebody's actually a transsexual, *NOTHING* can make them happy as their physical sex. Nothing. I have a friend who went through it all...trying to identify as a gay man when she wasn't even particularly attracted to men, because it was more acceptable in her mind than admitting she was a woman. Pre-transition she WAS unstable and screwed up, and highly unattractive. Now she's the hottest woman in the room many times because she believes in herself.

        And to be blunt when the Manning thing first broke, I took one look at a picture of her, turned to my husband and said "That's not a gay man. That's a woman." I could see it in her eyes.

        Trans in denial end up *truly screwed up* from what I've seen.

      4. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

        Here's the problem.
        Bradley/Chelsea Manning is doing as big a disservice to transgender rights and acceptance as he did to our country.
        Manning himself has completely clouded his motives for leaking classified documents.
        Manning went into the military to try to overcome intolerable feelings of being the wrong gender.
        Apparently that did not happen.
        Manning remained traumatized by gender confusion.
        So somewhere along the line, instead of leaving the military to go become Chelsea on his own time and dime, he decided to become a whistleblower instead.
        So which is it?
        Was Manning completely in his right mind and of full mental and emotional faculties when he decided to leak all those classifed documents?
        Or was his judgment clouded by being overwrought by being in the wrong body?
        Were his motives more self-serving than he admits?
        In other words, how are the two things related?
        Is it cause and effect? Co-ocurring/correlated situations?
        One thing's for sure -- they are not UNrelated.

        I fully expect to be called transgender phobic for this stance.
        I am not. I am sorry that Bradley Manning is setting the cause back in the minds of those who either don't understand or don't "approve of" transgenderism. But that's how I see it.

        I would be very sympathetic to Manning's transgender needs had he not waited until being
        convicted and sentenced before mentioning them.
        I am not one sees Manning as a hero (or shero).
        He has been found guilty in a court and been sentenced for leaking classified documents.
        I am with Wilderness on this. People who break the law and are put in prison deserve to be treated humanely. But no more humanely than those who do not break the law.
        Manning betrayed the military and his country. Now he's DEMANDING that those he betrayed put him through transgender treatment to become Chelsea?
        And we owe this to him why????
        What message does that send to others who struggle with their sexual identity?
        Infiltrate the military, become a whistleblower, get convicted and then make the government pay for your sex reassignment?

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          MM, Good job explaining what I, (and I suspect many others), see this situation to be. It has nothing to do with the transgender question.

          But everything to do with PC expectations and the concept of personal responsibility. And I say PC be damned.


          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The very fact that you and I (two normally opposite viewpoints) agree, pretty much tells it all, eh?
            It's a smokescreen, distraction and a political ruse.
            It's pretty crazy when were' talking about military and PC in the same person!

      5. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

        http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … xcuse.html

        This is exactly what I was trying to say in my post above.
        Only broader than just trans service people.
        Manning is hurting trans people. Period.