Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Army Releases Photo of Wikileaker Bradley Manning in Wig and Makeup

http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow (http://gawker.com/army-releases-photo-of-wikileaker-bradley-manning-in-wi-1149171595?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)

A photograph of Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning wearing makeup and a blonde wig was released yesterday by the army as part of documentation related to Manning's trial. It's the first such photo of Manning, who is transgender.

The photograph was attached to emails Manning had sent to a therapist, Capt. Michael Worsley, and an NCOIC, Sgt. Paul Adkins, about gender identity, in which the army private expressed a belief that a career in the military might "get rid of it." Manning's lawyers introduced the email to Adkins and accompanying photograph as part of the trial. (Update to note: This paragraph has been changed to clarify that it was, specifically, the photograph to Adkins that was introduced as evidence.)

Wonderful. Now we're not just depraved deviants, we're also traitors to our country.

Here's to even more unnecessary violence. What a shame.

I want to think there won't be a backlash toward us over this.

Just the same, it bothers me that Manning is trans in some way, because his actions make us look like traitors to our nation (for those of us who live in the U.S.) as he could be the first trans person many people actually see. I won't state my opinion on the trial or case here, but I will say that knowing how most people think of what he did at least in my area ... this doesn't help us.

It also bothers me that the military prosecution team tried to frame him as willingly aiding the enemy because of a picture (I'm guessing this one?) of him smiling while cross dressing and wearing a wig. They were saying that because he looked so happy the next day, that surely he was willingly aiding the enemy. They didn't stop to think about the fact that he may have been smiling simply for enjoying how he was presenting. Apparently this photograph was their major evidence for the charge of willfully aiding the enemy. They tried to burn him any way they could and they used the fact he was trying to come out to a superior as proof of him guilt that could have landed him the death penalty.

Manning's actions trouble me because they make us look bad to people who don't know much about us. This should have been a non issue in the case.

The military prosecution trying to literally fry her over being trans ... that really makes me angry.

It's good to know we're all whistle blowers and threats to national security now!

I've made my feelings on Manning clear in the other thread.  All I will say is that his actions do not have anything to do with us.  No one is sitting there and looking at him judging the entire transgender community.  I don't think anyone would accuse us for releasing over 700,000 classified documents because we are also transgender.  I doubt anyone would think otherwise.

Meh, America is just butthurt because he exposed the governments dirty laundry to the world. The rest of the world  probably gave the US Government a hard time over what they saw. Frankly if you're dumb enough to leave post-it notes on secure computers with passwords on it and let a private access top secret files in the first place you deserve to be exposed like this. A private is still green, with 0 experience in the military and no one to give him a character profile and vouch for his integrity. And the post-it notes with passwords does not speak highly of the US Military one bit.

I just worry about other who are serving and come out as trans. Because this may hold back any chance of us being able to serve openly, or it may help us to get the freedom to serve as ourselves. Time will tell.

Quote from: Keaira on August 16, 2013, 01:16:44 PM
I just worry about other who are serving and come out as trans. Because this may hold back any chance of us being able to serve openly, or it may help us to get the freedom to serve as ourselves. Time will tell.

This was something else that crossed my mind. I can so see them pointing to Manning and saying "See? SEE?!" as a reason for why trans people shouldn't be allowed to serve. It's total nonsense to judge a group of people in such a manner based off of the actions of one individual ... but people do it all the time.

Quote from: learningtolive on August 16, 2013, 01:05:12 PM
I've made my feelings on Manning clear in the other thread.  All I will say is that his actions do not have anything to do with us.  No one is sitting there and looking at him judging the entire transgender community.  I don't think anyone would accuse us for releasing over 700,000 classified documents because we are also transgender.  I doubt anyone would think otherwise.

I sincerely hope you are correct, Learnigtolive.

Quote from: Keaira on August 16, 2013, 01:16:44 PM
Meh, America is just butthurt because he exposed the governments dirty laundry to the world. The rest of the world  probably gave the US Government a hard time over what they saw. Frankly if you're dumb enough to leave post-it notes on secure computers with passwords on it and let a private access top secret files in the first place you deserve to be exposed like this. A private is still green, with 0 experience in the military and no one to give his a character profile and vouch for his integrity. And the post-it notes with passwords does not speak highly of the US Military one bit.

I just worry about other who are serving and come out as trans. Because this may hold back any chance of us being able to serve openly, or it may help us to get the freedom to serve as ourselves. Time will tell.

But does it justify recklessly sending over 700,000 classified documents onto the internet? There is no way Manning read through all of those files and considered the broader political and tactical implications of her leaks.  There are also proper channels for him to taken which he ignored.  Granted, the Whistleblower protection act doesn't usually bode well for classified information, but he didn't even attempt it.  I think that is reckless behavior that could have potentially endangered our country.  Even though she released some information that should have been made public and I am a fan of transparency, it's not a good idea for us to support or encourage vigilante justice.  It could have bad consequences in the future.  Again, I don't think she is a bad person and believe she had good intent, but we can't promote this sort of behavior. 

Having said that, there was some information released through her leaks which were of importance to the public and deserved to be addressed.  This is why I think Manning does highlight the need for some reform in our Whistleblower system when it comes to military officers handling classified information.  The proper channels should exist and work for these individuals who desire to hold the government accountable and maintain transparency.  However, acting alone and being the sole arbitrator on what should be public is sort of a scary idea.  Especially considering that she released almost everything in site and didn't really consider the full impact of her actions.  That's why there needs to be a formal and legal system set up for this kind of thing. 

What value was bringing this picture up in this case? Are wigs and makeup a direct cause of people being a threat to US? Does Wikileaks cause people to start crossdressing? (Please note, some of that is sarcasm.)

Maybe I'm woefully ignorant on this case, but what was the point of that picture when it seems his gender status has little to do with the case on hand?

Quote from: wolfduality on August 16, 2013, 01:48:24 PM
What value was bringing this picture up in this case? Are wigs and makeup a direct cause of people being a threat to US? Does Wikileaks cause people to start crossdressing? (Please note, some of that is sarcasm.)

Maybe I'm woefully ignorant on this case, but what was the point of that picture when it seems his gender status has little to do with the case on hand?

I don't think this deserved to be brought up at all.  The reasoning from the prosecution, from what I read, was that he was relaxed and smiling a few days after the leaks.  As though he showed no remorse and was perfectly at ease with his decision.  It's more about the mentality and whether he iis sincere about his remorse or regret.  I don't buy that though and think there was a much different purpose behind it. I believe they used it to smere him and just belittle someone who has turned into a national and international hero.  It's more likely that they want to destroy his image and prevent others from following in his footsteps.

Quote from: learningtolive on August 16, 2013, 01:53:07 PM
I don't think this deserved to be brought up at all.  The reasoning from the prosecution, from what I read, was that he was relaxed and smiling a few days after the leaks.  As though he showed no remorse and was perfectly at ease with his decision.  It's more about the mentality and whether he iis sincere about his remorse or regret.  I don't buy that though and think there was a much different purpose behind it. I believe they used it to smere him and just belittle someone who has turned into a national and international hero.  It's more likely that they want to destroy his image and prevent others from following in his footsteps.

That's really my point too. I'm doubtful this is the only piece of evidence they have that can show that he was "relaxed" after the leaks, he sounded like a social enough guy so I'm sure SOMEONE could testify that he seemed unbothered by this. (Either online friends or offline friends.) This was all about shock and awe while unsettling the masses that don't deal with trans* people often or at least don't know they are dealing with trans* people. This was an attempt to make him seem more unbalanced because he's confused about his gender.

We all know how crazy trans* people are? Amiright? /sarcasm

Anyway, I don't think this was a direct attack to trans* people but it is unsettling that they resorted to childish "she's a weirdo! this is proof that this weirdo is the threat to us! that's why we shouldn't like her!". Kinda like a witchhunt to find SOMETHING different about someone just so they can justify their dislike/disapproval of this person. I might not be making sense, as I do believe she really messed up but I really think the government is trying to find anything to make her easier to dislike in the public eye while ignoring the legitimate issues the leaks showed.

Quote from: wolfduality on August 16, 2013, 02:12:02 PM
That's really my point too. I'm doubtful this is the only piece of evidence they have that can show that he was "relaxed" after the leaks, he sounded like a social enough guy so I'm sure SOMEONE could testify that he seemed unbothered by this. (Either online friends or offline friends.) This was all about shock and awe while unsettling the masses that don't deal with trans* people often or at least don't know they are dealing with trans* people. This was an attempt to make him seem more unbalanced because he's confused about his gender.

We all know how crazy trans* people are? Amiright? /sarcasm

Anyway, I don't think this was a direct attack to trans* people but it is unsettling that they resorted to childish "she's a weirdo! this is proof that this weirdo is the threat to us! that's why we shouldn't like her!". Kinda like a witchhunt to find SOMETHING different about someone just so they can justify their dislike/disapproval of this person. I might not be making sense, as I do believe she really messed up but I really think the government is trying to find anything to make her easier to dislike in the public eye while ignoring the legitimate issues the leaks showed.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

I think the Lamo Chat logs were sufficient in proving his conviction in his beliefs.  I think there was no reason to reveal the photo and it shouldn't have been used, but it's about defaming him and preventing him from becoming an iconoclastic idol.   

Quote from: learningtolive on August 16, 2013, 02:26:44 PM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

I think the Lamo Chat logs were sufficient in proving his conviction in his beliefs.  I think there was no reason to reveal the photo and it shouldn't have been used, but it's about defaming him and preventing him from becoming an iconoclastic idol.

Agreed.

Btw, how I understand it is Manning leaked lots of documents, some that make him a hero in the eyes of the public but some that probably should've been kept unreleased. Which is why I say he "goofed", but I still think of him more as a hero for doing this. Am I right in this regard though? (About releasing some documents unnecessarily.)

The fact of the matter is that the picture in question was a defense exhibit in the court martial.  There was no breach of confidentiality with the therapist.  Furthermore, the exhibits have been released through the Army's FOIA office, as part of the record.

The Associated Press picked up on the exhibits immediately, and the AP article was posted in the "People News" section of the site, prior to this post being made.

Quote from: learningtolive on August 16, 2013, 01:46:30 PM
But does it justify recklessly sending over 700,000 classified documents onto the internet? There is no way Manning read through all of those files and considered the broader political and tactical implications of his leaks.  There are also proper channels for him to taken which he ignored.  Granted, the Whistleblower protection act doesn't usually bode well for classified information, but he didn't even attempt it.  I think that is reckless behavior that could have potentially endangered our country.  Even though he released some information that should have been made public and I am a fan of transparency, it's not a good idea for us to support or encourage vigilante justice.  It could have bad consequences in the future.  Again, I don't think he is a bad person and believe he had good intent, but we can't promote this sort of behavior. 

Having said that, there was some information released through his leaks which were of importance to the public and deserved to be addressed.  This is why I think Manning does highlight the need for some reform in our Whistleblower system when it comes to military officers handling classified information.  The proper channels should exist and work for these individuals who desire to hold the government accountable and maintain transparency.  However, acting alone and being the sole arbitrator on what should be public is sort of a scary idea.  Especially considering that he released almost everything in site and didn't really consider the full impact of his actions.  That's why there needs to be a formal and legal system set up for this kind of thing.

I neither approve or disprove of his actions. As far as I am concerned his commanding officers need to share the blame too. If one of my subordinates was acting out, you can bet his butt would be out of my department faster than you can say BFE. He should have been thrown in a cell and been examined by a councilor. But he wasn't. Had he been removed from service it would not have happened. A CO is responsible for the actions of those under them.

Kia Ora,

I feel sorry for him/her...The sacrificial scapegoat of the American nation...Others have done a lot worse...


Personally I think Bradley needs our support not our condemnation ...

Metta Zenda :)

Im not condeming him either. Big Government is giving itsself too many freedoms these days that infringe upon the ethics and morals this country was built on. They are just looking to divert attention from other shadyness, like Benghazi for instance, to this trial.this is all just for show. And you're right. Others Have done worse and gotten away with a lot less. But, its not what you know, its who you know that will get you places.

I can only hope that they will treat him with some level of dignity from now on because the SHU is not meant for long term use.

Quote from: Keaira on August 16, 2013, 01:16:44 PM
I just worry about other who are serving and come out as trans. Because this may hold back any chance of us being able to serve openly, or it may help us to get the freedom to serve as ourselves. Time will tell.

As of right now there is no chance to serve openly.  I am currently being processed out due to a GID diagnosis despite the fact that I stated that it is my desire to finish out my contract before I made any step toward transitioning.  It was then pointed out to me in black and white that GID = discharge. Although I must say that other than being offended that they do not wish to keep me in a job that is undermanned at the moment just because of gender identity, everyone in both the Army (medical personnel) and Navy (my chain of command) that I have interacted with about the issue have been nothing but respectful on the subject. 

I can't help but wonder if its a direct result of Manning's actions. Its still an ongoing issue and the Army's butt is still stinging for its screw-up.  Though I am curious, if you dont mind my asking, if you are intent on finishing your service, why come out in the first place to a military therapist? Why not wait?

Quote from: Keaira on August 16, 2013, 08:42:10 PM
I can't help but wonder if its a direct result of Manning's actions. Its still an ongoing issue and the Army's butt is still stinging for its screw-up.  Though I am curious, if you dont mind my asking, if you are intent on finishing your service, why come out in the first place to a military therapist? Why not wait?

Sometimes GID becomes so severe that one cannot wait, regardless of the consequences.

I would say the USG is trying to smear Manning, so he becomes a "folk hero" only to a handful of people...to many Americans, being TG is right next to being a child molester. It has no relevance to the espionage case.

Quote from: Keaira on August 16, 2013, 08:42:10 PM
I can't help but wonder if its a direct result of Manning's actions. Its still an ongoing issue and the Army's butt is still stinging for its screw-up.  Though I am curious, if you dont mind my asking, if you are intent on finishing your service, why come out in the first place to a military therapist? Why not wait?

I was going through a rough couple of months.  Other things were contributing to it, not just feelings of dysphoria.  I went to Military OneSource for counseling to get me out of the funk.  I went to them because it was supposed to be confidential and I was trying to get help in time for it not to affect my career.  The counselor felt I sounded too hopeless and was a threat to myself and called the emergency room of the nearby Army hospital.  I got discharged within like 90 minutes, but my command found out and I got removed from my sub for 30 days so I could be evaluated.  At my first appointment with a Navy therapist, I guess I thought if I was stuck there I might as well use it and be honest.  I knew about the regulation that GID is supposed to be disqualifying, but I guess I kind of figured it would be like DADT was its last couple years of existence and not enforced, especially since I tried to make it clear the whole time that I wanted to stay in and could wait until my enlistment was up.  Obviously, I thought wrong and have about three months left before they send me home.   

I would be almost certain that the Manning incident got you out, double time instead of finishing your service out. 3 months really isnt very long, but apparently they thought it was too long.

No, now I will be out in three months.  They're giving me time to see a therapist before the give me the boot.  I would have had another two years left otherwise.

Oh, okay. I misread. Sorry

No worries

Quote from: learningtolive on August 16, 2013, 02:26:44 PM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/manning-lamo-logs/

I think the Lamo Chat logs were sufficient in proving his conviction in his beliefs.  I think there was no reason to reveal the photo and it shouldn't have been used, but it's about defaming him and preventing him from becoming an iconoclastic idol.

My understanding is the the exhibits from the trial were released subsequent to a "Freedom of Information Act" request by the media.

It's unfortunate that Manning did what she did, she was in a position that required trust and she failed miserably. Given the fact that she's going to do years in Federal prison at Leavenworth, she was probably trying to ensure that since she looks pretty effeminate that she may have considered how much better her lot would be in the women's facility as opposed to exposure in the showers to a lot of sex deprived males. Unfortunately for Chelsea, the military won't buy into it. Life in the real world can be extremely harsh!

I don't think we get to question Miss Manning's gender identity, any more than she gets to question ours.  Each person knows their own better than anyone else does, and I'm really amazed with the raw amount of misgendering happening in this thread.

It's going to be rough for her, in prison - rougher still given the nature of her crimes, and, given that the military doesn't recognize her gender identity and is tossing her into a men's prison, even tougher.  I believe she ought to be in prison - if the only person you can find to publish your leak is Julian Assange, you likely ought to rethink your leak; Assange is fairly awful and his belief that government secrets are by nature a bad thing is immensely problematic.  However, she ought to be in a prison where she can be safe from gender-related violence.

You know, despite Manning's actions, crimes, etc. if she is truly trans, we should take this as an opportunity. Yes, we are in bad light for this. But, we are still getting light. I think we can at least be thankful for that. Perhaps with Manning being a national headline, people will start to try and understand what transgender really is, and hopefully not make the assumption that all of us are bad.
And I also think we need to be open to Manning (there's another topic somewhere for that). We've all done things we aren't proud of, but we need to support each other's journeys despite that. I don't think that's too much to ask for Manning.

Manning initially came out as a gay man, I buy that and it's unfortunate that she was allowed access to top secret information because she wouldn't have been considered for that type of job in the Army or any similar organization fifty years ago because gays have historically been easily compromised by spies due to their sexual orientation and private proclivities. But because we have a soft and fuzzy leadership in the Pentagon they allowed it to happen and share in the moral responsibility in the event any harm comes to the country as a result of the massive leaks.

My gut feeling is that Chelsea is a manipulative type and is still trying to game the system by claiming to be trans in an effort to minimize her level of physical abuse while locked up in Leavenworth, after all there are murderers in there on life sentences with nothing to lose who are still very patriotic and wouldn't think twice given the chance to harm her. Not everyone who claims to be transgender is, we all know that! I don't feel sorry for her, she made a stupid choice and obviously didn't count the cost. She is a very immature individual!

Many people come out as gay first and many hide being trans while in the military. I see no reason to believe Manning to be any different.

I've been giving this some thought the last few days. My feelings about Chelsea Manning range from pity to respect to anger and more and back again. I'm very conflicted as to if I see her as a hero or traitor to the United States. I suspect it's something history will have to decide.

But the more I think about it, the more I think we should ... maybe not support what she did, but support her transition. I think she's legitimately transgender. This isn't something that came up right after the trial, as it was something used against her in her trial. Regardless of what one thinks of her, THAT is wrong and unjust no matter how one slices it.

We should support her transition not because we care one way or the other about what she did ... but because it may allow us to reach the public with a massive education campaign about what it is we face in every day life and what people can do to help us (Which is mostly to work toward better laws giving us the same rights and protections as others and just letting us live our lives), and we can try to improve things for those of us who are incarcerated.

I've read up on her for a while ... regardless of if one sees her as hero or villain, it's obvious that she is a very troubled individual. So by no means am I saying that we should consider her to be the ideal poster child of the trans community. But we may be able to use her situation to help us instead of letting it become a media smear campaign against her and us.

If we see a story where the news outlet miss genders her, we should write them and politely correct them. If some of us have journalistic experience, maybe we should write some opinion piece articles about what being trans is and send it out to local media outlets.

I just ... I want to think something good can come out of this.

Good thoughts on that Amy, just the same it isn't going to happen while she's in Leavenworth and still under military control. So I'll waste no further words on the subject and rather be as uplifting as possible to those here that need a little brotherly and sisterly TLC from the rest of us.

 :police:

A reminder, since Chelsea Manning has publicly expressed her preference for female pronouns and new name, to refer to her with male pronouns is misgendering and thus a violation of TOS.

News Admin

Quote from: Shana A on August 25, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
:police:

A reminder, since Chelsea Manning has publicly expressed her preference for female pronouns and new name, to refer to her with male pronouns is misgendering and thus a violation of TOS.

News Admin

Hi Shana,
      I fixed my faux pax on my Bradley Manning posts, it was insensitive of me, but I was going off the fact that the Military is refusing to allow her to transition while under their control and will continue to refer to her as Bradley and my understanding of the military justice system's Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it clear that those in uniform have absolutely no constitutional rights. Personally I think she is attempting to game the system and is a totally confused mess, I feel sorry for her parents and loved ones. I will recuse myself from any further posting on this particular thread because of my jaded opinion. ~Shan~

Quote from: Shantel on August 25, 2013, 01:33:28 PM
Hi Shana,
      I fixed my faux pax on my Bradley Manning posts, it was insensitive of me, but I was going off the fact that the Military is refusing to allow her to transition while under their control and will continue to refer to her as Bradley and my understanding of the military justice system's Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it clear that those in uniform have absolutely no constitutional rights. Personally I think she is attempting to game the system and is a totally confused mess, I feel sorry for her parents and loved ones. I will recuse myself from any further posting on this particular thread because of my jaded opinion. ~Shan~

Thanks for fixing that, Shan!

I have no problem with you, or anyone else, expressing differing opinions about Chelsea Manning, or how her case affects and overlaps military or trans issues. We're a truly diverse community here!

Shana

Can the original post be edited to change the name both in the title and in the post itself?

Quote from: Nygeel on September 13, 2013, 03:36:49 PM
Can the original post be edited to change the name both in the title and in the post itself?

Only if the original article is changed. Otherwise we have to post it as it is. The article came out before she decided to officially become Chelsea.

Amy

Quote from: Amelia Pond on September 13, 2013, 04:05:24 PM
Only if the original article is changed. Otherwise we have to post it as it is. The article came out before she decided to officially become Chelsea.

Amy

I kinda disagree on that one. The trans community has known about PFC Manning identifying as a woman since maybe 2010/2011 (ish). I'd wager that's around when she "decided" on the name Chelsea. The original post COULD be edited to be ambiguous (I'm not talking about the article, but the content of the original post) to say "PFC Manning" instead...if you've read the articles, you'd see how much she didn't want pictures and other info of her pre-transition self out in the public.

Quote from: Nygeel on September 14, 2013, 01:23:54 AM
I kinda disagree on that one. The trans community has known about PFC Manning identifying as a woman since maybe 2010/2011 (ish). I'd wager that's around when she "decided" on the name Chelsea.

Decided was probably a bad choice of words. This article was from before she officially announced (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,147251.msg1210654.html#msg1210654) that she is Chelsea.

Quote from: Nygeel on September 14, 2013, 01:23:54 AM
The original post COULD be edited to be ambiguous (I'm not talking about the article, but the content of the original post) to say "PFC Manning" instead...

I know what you're talking about. We copy everything we put in the OP from the actual article, so if that's the way an article reads, that's what we put.

Please review the Posting news Articles & Quoting Guidelines (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,12805.msg94246.html#msg94246). If you have any further questions about how we post articles, please contact a member of the News Staff (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?action=groups;sa=members;group=30) or the News Admin (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1856) privately.

Amy

Quote from: Nygeel on September 14, 2013, 01:23:54 AM
I kinda disagree on that one. The trans community has known about PFC Manning identifying as a woman since maybe 2010/2011 (ish). I'd wager that's around when she "decided" on the name Chelsea. The original post COULD be edited to be ambiguous (I'm not talking about the article, but the content of the original post) to say "PFC Manning" instead...if you've read the articles, you'd see how much she didn't want pictures and other info of her pre-transition self out in the public.

The news section reflects (hopefully at least) unbiased reporting from news sources. She didn't come out s trans at the time this was written. While there was speculation on her gender identity it wasn't set in stone. The news section isn't the place to put our hopes and view points out on the world. There's other articles in the news section that discusses Chelsea's identity.Editing this article is akin to editing history. It won't properly reflect the timeline of events in Chelsea's life and trial.

If you still disagree, you can bring up a discussion in the staff forums to set policies on dealing with situations like these.