Chelsea Manning Set To Be Released From Prison, 28 Years Early (nbcnews.com) 542
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning is set to walk out of prison Wednesday -- but she won't be entirely free. Manning's 35-year sentence for leaking an enormous trove of military intelligence records was commuted by President Barack Obama in January. But Manning is still appealing her conviction in a case that could take years, and the government has yet to respond to the appeal. And all the while, Private First Class Manning, 29, will remain an active duty soldier in the U.S. Army. She won't be paid a salary, and it's highly unlikely that she will be called to serve. But being placed on voluntary excess leave rather than discharged, says one of her attorneys, makes her vulnerable to new military punishment or charges if she steps out of line. Such an offense could be anything from getting into a fistfight to revealing previously unreleased classified information. Manning could even get into trouble with the military for speaking and writing. The Army private then known as Bradley Manning was just 22-year-old when she leaked nearly 750,000 military files and cables to WikiLeaks. Manning was court-martialed and sentenced in 2013 to 35 years in prison, with opportunity for parole after seven years served. n a statement given to the TODAY show the day after sentencing, Manning came out as a transgender woman. Last Tuesday, in Manning's first official statement about her plans after prison, she said, "I can see a future for myself as Chelsea."
Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a happy day amidst troubled times. Thanks Chelsea, for having done the right thing, and thanks Obama.
Re: Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Helping to expose corruption, deeply unethical behavior and widespread human rights violations.
Re: (Score:2)
This is iffy. Manning did not know what the information actually was. It was a quick download of everything that would fit, then handed to wikileaks without doing any vetting.
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for Bruce Jenner after he killed somebody in a bout of totally reckless driving, and then subsequently blamed it on one of his victims. The media didn't give a shit about that; he just got a sex change and then was immediately branded a hero.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I only see people obsessing over Jenner's involvement in the multiple vehicle collision that killed Howe (which police did not file charges over) because of her trans status. Had Jenner not been trans, very few people would even be aware of the accident and virtually nobody would be talking about it today.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, no one would be talking about it now, he'd have been in jail.
Re: Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone clearly wasn't paying attention.
Re: Yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
If I took a sword to a blacksmith and he beat it into a ploughshare, would you insist on calling it a sword because it once was one?
In short, do you make an "immutability of essence" argument with everything, or just gender?
If you see gender as an immutable binary, I strongly recommend learning about the amazing diversity of intermediary intersex forms which occur surprisingly commonly in humans. Humanity tends toward the binary, but it's fully capable of everything in-between. I also recommend that you learn about tissue homologues.
Lastly, how exactly does what's in one's pants affect your everyday interaction with them, and thus define how you should treat them? And should what's in their pants define your interaction with them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
??
What exactly is the mumbo-jumbo you're trying to express here?
If you are XY you're male...if XX you're female. If you can't get it in your brain which one you are, then get some psychiatric help, but it doesn't change who you are.
If you have an extra X or Y rolling around in there, ok, I'll give it to you...you are kinda fucked
Re: Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the mumbo-jumbo you're trying to express here?
None. Your Mumbo jumbo masquerading as simple logic is still mumbo jumbo.
If you are XY you're male...if XX you're female.
These are the rules of biology:
1. If you think it's simple, you're wrong
2. If you think it's complicated, you're still wrong.
3. If you think it's ludicrously messy and complicated, you're wrong, but getting there.
Since you are making pseudo biological arguments, I shall respond with biological arguments.
Go Google "androgen insensitivity syndrome".
I'll wait.
OK now you've read it, do you believe that someone work XY chromosomes, but entirely female anatomy since birth is male or female? And why do you choose the choice you made?
Follow up questions: what is your definition of gender that actually matches biology I a way that's neither circular nor unique to humans?
Re: Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Boston Tea Party was treason too.
Sometimes treason is the right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Dumping cargo into the bay is not treason. Illegal, but not treason.
Damaging property of the Crown and going against the explicit orders or the representative of the Crown was viewed as treason, even by those doing it. Dressing as non-citizen Mohawk warriors made it even clearer that this was treason. Donning war garments not of your own country is pretty much the archetypical definition of treason.
Governor Thomas Hutchinson called it high treason, and in England, several of the leaders were charged with treason, but as they never were brought to England for trial, and
Re: (Score:2)
The tea was owned by the Trading Company, after all.
The East India Company went under British Parliament sovereignty and control earlier in 1773, so it's a somewhat moot distinction.
But yes, taxes was indeed one of the justifications used, in particular the slogan "taxation without representation is tyranny", although some of the leaders like Sam Adams had pledged to oppose the trade monopoly and control by the Crown even if taxes were at zero. In loyalist eyes, he was certainly considered a traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumping cargo into the bay is not treason. Illegal, but not treason.
By our current standards as written in the US constitution. I will bet you that treason got clarified in our constitution as what it is because it was applied to all sorts of behavior previously.
She did the right thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Manning discovered widespread corruption, deeply unethical behavior and absolutely unacceptable conduct, and she decided to let fundamental human rights and dignity overrule artificial power structures, so she exposed the lies, and of course the liars punished her.
It must have taken immense bravery, and we should admire her, not attack her.
Re:She did the right thing (Score:5, Informative)
There was no deeply unethical behaviour 99% of what was given to wikileaks.
Re:She did the right thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree. There's a big difference between leaking, and dumping troves of information. It could have been bad.
Fortunately it was nowhere near as bad as people were claiming at the time. None of the revelations were really that shocking except to people who were naive about war or diplomacy.
In a way the most shocking thing was the sheer breadth of information that was made available to a young person who was disturbed, alienated and psychologically vulnerable. Granted screening for people like that is never going to be perfect, but it's almost like they weren't even trying.
Re: (Score:3)
We're not allowed to say things like that because it exposes that Manning is potentially the same kind of person as Cosmo or whatever they're calling themselves now: a mentally-imbalanced individual with severe cognitive and emotional control problems due to unaddressed psychiatric issues.
GID is generally handled by gender reassignment. That's usually mostly-benign, although there's a lot of social stress that's secondary. GID is frequently comorbid with serious psychiatric disturbances that look an a
Re: (Score:2)
Him, not her... don't feed into that bullshit, he was born a man and will always be one, no matter what parts he cuts off.
Re:She did the right thing (Score:4, Insightful)
My understanding is that it was in fact her duty. Something in the oath she took about defending against threats to the United States, foreign and domestic.
Yet Manning signed a non-disclosure agreement which Manning decided didn't apply. In the process Manning exposed classified information about methods and collection activities which gave the USA's adversaries the ability to avoid collection and may have cost the lives of human assets involved in the collections. Manning also caused grave damage to international relations....
So I have a question... What was the big story yesterday about Trump and the meeting with the Russians all about? How are they similar?
Re:She did the right thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet Manning signed a non-disclosure agreement which Manning decided didn't apply.
Oaths supersede signed agreements.
Re:She did the right thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Only if one is willing to ADMIT to what they did and pay the price, but you do it within the system FIRST. Manning didn't do it the right way, he went rouge bypassed the system and broke the law AND his oath in my view. It was double bad that he was enlisted in the military at the time. You CANNOT refuse an order in the military unless it is CLEARLY unlawful, Manning disobeyed lawful orders, violated his oath, violated the law, and arguably committed treason while in uniform.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if one is willing to ADMIT to what they did and pay the price, but you do it within the system FIRST.
Do you have an example of someone who successfully worked within the system?
In the similar context of NSA malfeasance, there is abundant evidence of several other people who tried to work within the system, got hammered for it, and achieved nothing. I expect there are many such examples in the military as well, but the military is better at keeping them secret. It turns out that we need Mannings/Snowdens, because that's the only way the information gets out. I'll grant that Manning was particularly carele
Re: (Score:2)
For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Many in that movement went though the courts, lobbied their government officials and even peacefully protested to sway public opinion, and only then did they resort to breaking the law... You keep trying.
Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seiz
Re:She did the right thing (Score:4, Informative)
For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Many in that movement went though the courts, lobbied their government officials and even peacefully protested to sway public opinion, and only then did they resort to breaking the law... You keep trying.
Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.
Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens? Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.
For examples of how this is SUPPOSED to work... Have a look at the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's
So, that's a no. Thanks for clearing that up.
Also, you really need to review your history of the Civil Rights movement. It included quite a bit of lawbreaking which was necessary to raise awareness and move the issue forward. I'd say it constitutes a pretty decent counterexample to your claim, actually. But even if it didn't, the fact that you had to reach back almost 60 years to find an example of someone allegedly fixing a governmental problem through official channels is telling enough.
Your problem is you have preconceived notions about some conspiracy for which you have no proof but you strongly believe to be true. You've been amassing "evidence" to bolsterer your world view by seizing any fragment of something said or done and ascribing great importance to it and ignoring the mountains of evidence which doesn't support your belief.
Nonsense. You should read about John Crane, Thomas Drake and the others who were persecuted (and prosecuted) for trying to reveal what Snowden did, but to do it "the right way". The evidence is abundant and well-documented by serious journalists. This isn't some conspiracy theory crap, and if you're unaware of it it's because your own confirmation bias has led you to avoid it. Here's an article to get you started: https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Could it possibly be that the members of the intelligence community are really trying to protect the USA and it's citizens?
Good intentions are not a defense against bad actions. I sincerely believe that the members of the intelligence community are trying to protect the country, but that doesn't mean they can just do anything they want. There is tremendous potential for abuse, which is why we need laws that strictly circumscribe what the intelligence community can do, and real oversight -- with teeth -- to verify that the laws are being followed. We manifestly lack real oversight, and as a result the intelligence community regularly breaks the law, which itself is dangerously permissive.
Could it be that having classified information is integral to maintaining that safety? If you allow either or both of these, you have to believe that what Manning did was ill advised and counterproductive at best and treason at worst.
You have a very simplistic view of the world. There is more than one issue at stake. Classified information can be integral to maintaining safety, and yet it can still be necessary to reveal classified information in order to preserve freedom. In most cases this can be done without actually endangering anyone... but sometimes it can't, and that's just too damned bad. Freedom isn't free, and part of the cost
Re: (Score:2)
Manning did nothing to protect the US, the effects were the opposite. There was no uncovering of corruption or misdeeds. The most incriminating stuff was what we already knew, which was the minority of the information taken. Most of it was diplomatic cables, the release of which was harmful. Manning did not know what this information was at the time, he did the digital equivalent of stealing unopened file cabinets. He then turned that information over to wikileaks which was known to be irresponsible wi
Re: (Score:2)
Your point (apart from bashing Trump) escapes me. Perhaps you missed my point? I'll try again..
IF what Trump said to the Russians was treason (as some claim) then what was what Manning did? Heck, how about what Hillary did with those classified E-Mails?
Re: (Score:2)
I find it convenient to know if you invite me to meet your sister.
Yes, she would fall under the UCMJ, but... (Score:3)
You Can't Handle the Truth! (Score:2)
You Can't Handle the Truth!
How long be for chelsea get's an code red?
Re: (Score:2)
Or (Score:5, Insightful)
7 years too late.
Re:Freak show (Score:4, Funny)
Are we talking about Manning or Trump?
Re:Freak show (Score:5, Informative)
Don't be ridiculous. Trump isn't suicidal.
Re:Freak show (Score:5, Funny)
Have you seen his diet?
Re:Freak show (Score:4, Funny)
He has the best diet.
Nobody has a better diet than him.
Re: (Score:2)
All the best people say so. Very good people, highly professional, top-level people.
Re: (Score:2)
He has the best diet.
Nobody has a better diet than him.
He gets two scoops of ice cream - everyone else only gets one! (Yes, CNN actually ran this story - hard hitting investigative reporting.)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a HUGE diet. A BIG BEAUTIFUL diet. A GREAT AMERICAN diet. And Mexico is going to pay for it.
Of course, the truth is that he's not getting any from his wife any more, so he's compensating with food.
Re: (Score:2)
He only has to last 4 more years. If only to avoid Pence as prez.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No.
United States Senator
from Illinois
In office
January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
Member of the Illinois Senate
from the 13th district
In office
January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004
Re: (Score:2)
Obama survived the Presidency despite his smoking habit...
He was also 48, 180 lbs and a runner, not 70 years old, 235 lbs, and on statins for high cholesterol.
I would not bet a lot of money on Trump being alive 8 years from now, for health reasons alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sexually confused, maybe.
Personally I suspect someone is playing games and dropped some hints that being a tranny would help his chance of parole.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Most trans assault victims who are transvestites, not transsexuals, are assaulted by people they deceive into thinking they were the opposite sex.
Same with the "trans day of remembrance." Most trans murder victims are transvestites. The murder rate for white female transsexuals is lower than the general population.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL.. You do realize they said the same thing about Reagan right?
Re:When leaking national secrets was cool (Score:4, Insightful)
So indiscriminantly dumping thousands of classified communications in an active warzone is "OK" because you hate Bush.
But -- and this is assuming that the "narrative" is true -- Trump giving information to Russia pertaining to known terrorist plots to place explosives on civilian airliners that would result in the murder of innocent civilians is somehow "immoral" because wanting to protect civilians is evil now because Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps trusting Wikileaks wasn't the best move, but she did expose some serious corruption and of course war crimes like the "collateral murder" in Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Info the Israelis gave to us in confidence, that we very well won't be getting any more of in the future, because Trump is an imbecile.
The only people saying the intel was from Israel are the media and an anonymous source in the government. Yet we were told by the media only a day earlier that the Russians could reverse engineer the intelligence provided by the POTUS despite him never mentioning the source. In fact, according to the National Security Advisor the President was not told of the origin. Strange how the media can reveal the presumed source (nation state) of the intelligence but mere false rumours about the President telling the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He sure was the lesser evil. I don't doubt that.
Unfortunately the election process does not allow for "neither, reroll!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome to question Trump's judgment, but his actions are completely legal
That's fairly irrelevant. As a president, Trump could literally commit a crime and pardon himself for it. He could even pardon himself for future crimes. Both would lead to impeachment, but he could do it.
I think what people don't like about this little incident is the fact that there was no reason for it and that intelligence agencies are seriously worried about him, because he's arguably the most retarded US president ever and has (at least officially) full and unrestricted access to every state secret. H
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Transgender (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is always flooded with teenagers who love to try to get a rise out of other people by posting racism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. Plus some legitimate racists, homophobes, transphobes, misogynists, etc, but a large portion are just immature kids.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to know what the shared user base between 4chan and Slashdot is. Including user names, for top kek, lad.
Re: (Score:3)
If there are large numbers of 4chan users here, they are impressively restrained...
Re: (Score:2)
Well I've been known to frequent /b in the past. It isn't as good anymore but as we all know /b/ was never good...
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be different. :(
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Lots, because the nerds are angry that trans women get to look at boobies any time they want. Just drives them crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, as you can see here, there are plenty of people who hate us because of what we are, and not who we are. It's no different than hating on someone because of their skin colour, and one day it will be seen that way - ignorant bigotry. Fortunately, the majority is now on our side, and that's got to be a major burn.
She's going to be okay, if her past performance is any indication at all. She's got more guts, spunk, and resiliency than the people throwing rocks, and in the back of their minds they
Re:Transgender (Score:5, Insightful)
1) When did you do a DNA test? Because there's plenty of people who are anatomically male who are XX, and anatomically female who are XY. Odds are high that she's XY, but there's certainly no guarantee. You cannot simply assert "she's XY" as a fact without a test.
2) Is that how you interact with people - going around insisting on DNA tests with them before you can figure out how to proceed? And if so, do you demand DNA tests only for just sex chromosomes (or just the gene SRY), or do you insist on other DNA tests first as well?
3) Why do you care so much what's in her pants? It's a bit creepy, as if you have some sort of sexual obsession with her. Who thinks about other peoples' genitals this much, apart from someone with a sexual fixation?
Re:Transgender (Score:4, Insightful)
Who thinks about other peoples' genitals this much, apart from someone with a sexual fixation?
People suffering from transphobia - a fear that they might find someone attractive but then later discover that they have the "wrong" genitals, resulting in deep shame and disgust. That's why the traditional portrayal of transgender people in movies and on TV is for a guy to date a hot trans woman, discover she has a penis and then throw up.
It's as if being attracted to someone, loving someone, is wrong and disgusting if you can't also insert your penis in your preferred hole. There are also a bizarre panic over theoretical fake trans woman rapists in bathrooms, let's not forget that.
The risk of this happening is apparently great enough (in their minds) to warrant all sorts of oppression and general asshattery.
Re: (Score:2)
No different than Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black. No matter how much she frizzes her hair or tans in a tanning bed, she is not nor will ever be black.
Reluctance or refusal to participate in someone else's delusion doesn't mean people are automatically -phobes.
We should all treat other people with respect, as we are all human beings. Just as transgender people should be respected for li
Re: (Score:2)
I've known people that thought transsexuals were homosexual males that tried to lure poor straight people to have sex with them as a kind of planned gayification. Now if they had been idiots without any logical ability it could be accepted as yet another crazy idea... But they weren't idiots. Well, not in other aspects.
Re:Transgender (Score:5, Informative)
Intersex conditions (of which chromosomal reversals are a type) are surprisingly common. For example, genital anomalies occur in 1 in 300 births, with outright ambiguous genitalia in 1 in 5000. Estimates of rates of intersex conditions including non-visible traits are as high as 1-2% of the global population - about the same rate as red hair. Some conditions are rare in the general population but high in specific groups - for example, 0.3% of Yupik children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, while 5-ARD (a curious condition where children are born seemingly as female but develop a penis and descended testes at puberty) is very rare globally but higher in the Dominican Republic - in one village 12 of the 13 families there had at least one child with the condition.
Males with XX and females with XY are just another in a long line of sex chromosomal abnormalities including XXY females, XXXX females, XXYY males (1 in 18-40k),XXXXX females, XXXXY males (1 in 85-100k), XXY males (1 in 500-1000), XXX females (1 in 1000), and XO females (1 in 2-5k). And it's not just changes in numbers or selections of chromosomes; the SRY gene (which is really the virilization cascade trigger, not the whole Y chromosome) seems unusually prone to migration.
So again: if you want to assert that Manning is XY: show us the lab results. You can say it's most probable that Manning is XY and get no contest from me. But chromosomal abnormalities are common enough to make arbitrary assertion of the claim as fact indefensible.
Re: (Score:3)
Intersex conditions (of which chromosomal reversals are a type) are surprisingly common. For example, genital anomalies occur in 1 in 300 births
You have a very lenient definition of "common." 0.33% is not common.
Re:Transgender (Score:5, Insightful)
Intersex conditions (of which chromosomal reversals are a type) are surprisingly common. For example, genital anomalies occur in 1 in 300 births
You have a very lenient definition of "common." 0.33% is not common.
He didn't say they're common. He said they're surprisingly common, which means they're more common that you might expect, not that they're common in any absolute sense (whatever that means, anyway).
Re: (Score:3)
You identify as transgender in your head.... Technically, your DNA puts your body in one of two genders...
You confuse gender with sex. Your sex is which dangly bits you popped out with, and is controlled by which chromosomes you have.
Your gender is an identity, and has a more complex control, likely related to a combination of genes on non-sex chromosomes as well as environment.
These days, you can change your sex (more or less successfully) without changing your gender or DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[...] never had to deal with a financial crisis or drugs or physical abuse.
Great Recession, checked. Half of extended family are either drug smugglers or drug addicts, checked. Drunk mother throwing pots, pans and plates at my head, checked.
It's people like you that should travel, because your mind certainly doesn't.
I've traveled all the San Francisco Bay Area for church and work. Los Angeles twice, Boise twice and Las Vegas once.
The things that work for me are Planet Money, 99% invisible, the Memory Palace, Invisibilia, Mythbusters, the White Rabbit Project, How It's Made, Modern Marvels, Battle 360, Future Weapons, anything by Neil Degrasse Tyson, Actuality, Freakonomics Radio, Radiolab, Car Talk and LinusTechTip's WAN Show, anytime that Luke and Linus host together.
Other than the fact you haven't had your morning coffee (I'm drinking my skinny vanilla latte right now), do you have a point to make?
Re: (Score:2)
The Fat-low Creamer telling someone they are not making a point.
I'm only willing to read so much verbal diarrhea. If I can't find the point, I'll point that out.
APK telling someone they are offtopic
I'm not APK.
Re: (Score:2)
"LA twice"
Once to visit my brother's biological father and his family in 1985. Once for a church meeting at the LA Arena in 1995. Got no other reason to visit the South.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least farther than the immediately adjacent states.
For the record, Idaho is not adjacent to California. You have to drive through Nevada and Oregon to get to Boise, Idaho.
Re: (Score:2)
What was it like to dine at McDonalds in Winnemucca?
Only stopped long enough to get gas.
How did taking a piss break in McDermitt help you grow as a person?
Never took a piss in McDermitt. Played the slot machines a few time at the motel.
Re: (Score:2)
[...] the inane details of your own pathetic life that you post every single day.
For a moment I thought this was an intelligent post until I got to the Beavis and Butthead part.
Re: (Score:2)
As if your trip to Boise is more interesting and worthy of discussion.
I'm just responding to comments. If you don't want me to respond, don't reply to my comments. The Beavis and Butthead crowd... just... can't... leave... it... alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they were using speech-to-text software? Even Dragon gets a lot wrong just reading text into speech, and software going the other way must also deal with background noise, etc.
Then maybe they should try reading their fucking post first before pressing "Submit"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoken like a true cave-man with zero understanding of the issue at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an incredibly biased and invalid statement, straight from the mouth of an indoctrinated extremist neo conservative.
Medically speaking, it is classified as a disorder, but they're working on changing that- even so, the cure is what she has done.
Re: (Score:2)
Spare us the 'web design': direct link to image. [amuniversal.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's a "tragedy" that her genitals may change? What, were you hoping to fuck her?
Re: (Score:3)
"What's put in place" is their own tissue.
Male and female genitals develop from the same initial sets of tissues; every organ has a homologue (although those descending from the Mullerian or Wolfian ducts are degenerated to very small sizes in the opposite sex). The clitoris and glans are the same organ. Same tissue, same nerves, etc. Under the influence of testosterone, for example, the clitoris becomes several times larger. The shaft of the penis in women is bifurcated, beneath the skin, and not as develo
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, the word "genitals" only refers to "a person or animal's
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that the treatment itself is gender reassignment, and it's effective. Example study: [aappublications.org].
Example [wiley.com]:
Example [sciencedirect.com]:
Etc. Etc. Etc.
You're wanting to withhold effective treatment, why exactly? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Is your identity or sexuality so fragile that you can't deal with existing in a world with transpeople, and as a consequence want them to remain untreated? Because that is the treatment.
It's quite true that transpeople have higher suicide rates than the general population both before and after treatment (although not the same before and after). But what exactly do you expect when dealing with family rejection, workplace discrimination, medical discrimination, parenting discrimination, huge medical costs that they have to bear unlike people being treated for almost any other condition (aka, they pay in their insurance premiums for other peoples' treatments but other people don't do the same to them) and (combined with workplace discrimination) correspondingly higher rates of homelessness, higher rates of sexual assault, higher rates of physical assault, pricks passing "bathroom laws" and the like, and general anti-trans assholery, e.g. like you find here at Slashdot?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Black & white worldview... You know that's an indication of a personality disorder*?
In fact there's little difference between men and women _excepting_ the sexual organs themselves and people without functioning sexual organs aren't that uncommon. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make your crappy ramblings true.
(* well it _is_ true but most people like that are simply either idiots or assholes)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Manning, regardless of one's opinions on the whole trans thing or whatnot, clearly had mental issues and should not have been given a clearance. When Private Manning leaked the material, it was out of anger at the military and the desire to cause it harm. Nothing showed clear cut criminal behavior of the US government, State Department or US military. Just lots of sensitive or embarrassing material.
Snowden showed care in th
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if Obama said (and I'm not suggesting that he was inclined to do so) "we're not going to pursue charges against Snowden," someone else could still bring them later. The way out is for the government not to give a damn anymore, or for charges to at least be brought before a judge where they could be dismissed with prejudice - except, they wouldn't be, because, as the law is
Re: (Score:2)
I am in the military, and I know multiple people 1 -3 years past their ETS and are still in because of various reasons not of their choosing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we'd all be happier if you minded your own business and didn't discuss things of which you're ingnorant.