Susan's Place Transgender Resources

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/22/214440560/bradley-manning-i-am-a-female-call-me-chelsea
Mark Memmot NPR New

Bradley Manning announced that she's a woman and intends to begin HRT.

Manning will be serving her sentence at a place that doesn't provide hrt. Manning's attorney said he will find a way to make them provide Manning with hrt.

-----------
Edit to change gender pronouns, I mistakenly thought I read NPR using "he", instead, they just avoid using pronouns.

I'm really scared for her since she's in a mens prison and I wouldn't be surprised if transition ends up making her a target by the other inmates.

I just saw this in the news and I think it's so cool. Think about the publicity around this case and the hero status She has among lots of people. I think it's pretty big news that hopefully can get a good debate going about trans* issues and human rights.
Really really hope she can get her HRT despite being in prison and all. I can't even imagine what it must be like in her shoes!

Quote from: AnnaSelbdritt on August 22, 2013, 12:28:54 PM
I just saw this in the news and I think it's so cool. Think about the publicity around this case and the hero status She has among lots of people. I think it's pretty big news that hopefully can get a good debate going about trans* issues and human rights.
Really really hope she can get her HRT despite being in prison and all. I can't even imagine what it must be like in her shoes!

It can go either way.  Chelsea Manning is not seen as a hero by many people and it could very well blur the progress of trans rights.  It certainly will gain traction among her supporters, but there is no telling how her detractors will handle this. 

As for hrt and srs, the military doesn't provide this to prisoners.  It will likely end up in a law suit.  This may further polarize the issue or it may gain positive coverage for trans individuals.  It's too early to tell in my opinion. 

Quote from: learningtolive on August 22, 2013, 12:43:07 PM
It can go either way.  Chelsea Manning is not seen as a hero by many people and it could very well blur the progress of trans rights.  It certainly will gain traction among her supporters, but there is no telling how her detractors will handle this. 

As for hrt and srs, the military doesn't provide this to prisoners.  It will likely end up in a law suit.  This may further polarize the issue or it may gain positive coverage for trans individuals.  It's too early to tell in my opinion.

I agree. Many people will see this add a big waste of taxpayer dollars (to fight a lawsuit and/or pay for her hrt and srs) to benefit someone quite a bit of people see as having committed treason. She does have supporters, but there's also opponents and probably many people conflicted about how they viewher.

if it does go to court, I hope the outcome can benefit us trans people who aren't in prison  as well.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 12:50:25 PM
I agree. Many people will see this add a big waste of taxpayer dollars (to fight a lawsuit and/or pay for her hrt and srs) to benefit someone quite a bit of people see as having committed treason. She does have supporters, but there's also opponents and probably many people conflicted about how they viewher.

Do prisoners have to somehow pay back the money spent on them while they are incarcerated?

Quote
if it does go to court, I hope the outcome can benefit us trans people who aren't in prison  as well.

That would be nice.  I'm definitely going to keep my ears open for news about her in the future!

As far as I know, prisoners don't have to pay for their medical care they receive in prison; that's why cases involving prisons paying for srs have been so heated, both within and out of the trans community.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 12:50:25 PM
I agree. Many people will see this add a big waste of taxpayer dollars (to fight a lawsuit and/or pay for her hrt and srs) to benefit someone quite a bit of people see as having committed treason. She does have supporters, but there's also opponents and probably many people conflicted about how they viewher.

if it does go to court, I hope the outcome can benefit us trans people who aren't in prison  as well.

I don't see how it would help those of us out of prison other than a shift in societal perspective.  And that only will happen if the debate goes in our favor.  From what I have heard, she may sue using the 8th Amedment and argue denial of treatment is cruel and unusual punishment.  It will have a major impact on coverage for prisoners, but not likely outside of it.  I suppose insurance companies may start to cover something labelled as cruel or usual to deny, but that's not likely as people outside of prison can seek treatment even if they don't have coverage. 

I wouldn't expect anything to change from this.  It's highly unlikely they will say this violates the 8th amendment, if that is indeed the legal recourse she follows up with. 

Quote from: Anna! on August 22, 2013, 12:53:36 PM
Do prisoners have to somehow pay back the money spent on them while they are incarcerated?

That would be nice.  I'm definitely going to keep my ears open for news about her in the future!

No, the taxpayers pay for the prison system (for the most part).  She did receive a fine (I believe $100,000) when she was charged.

P.S.  Even I'm having a hard time with pronouns.  I had to proofread two times to check for errors,lol. 

I had a feeling this would happen when her picture surfaced on the Internet with a disclosure of her gender issues.

That said I think we are all polarized just a bit on the issue but at the very least want fair treatment for her and hopefully a good long term reform out come. I'm sure that there is a better use for tax payer dollars than the possible 30 years of hard time which would ruin Manning with no benefit to those harmed by her actions. She is a non-violent first offender who is willing to recivitate. Especially since I don't remember anyone in her department being punished for the security lapses. I mean even the little hospital where I work has better computer security than what was described of that Army Intelligence site.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 01:06:34 PM
As far as I know, prisoners don't have to pay for their medical care they receive in prison; that's why cases involving prisons paying for srs have been so heated, both within and out of the trans community.

Yeah, that's really easy to understand.  I even found myself thinking "Why does she get transition paid for but I have to pay for it myself?".  I'm not sure how I want things to go here, but I think I would like it best if she was allowed HRT but had to pay for it herself (the same goes for medical treatments to other inmates, too! )

Money is a non-issue.  I admit I don't know exactly what hormones cost, but assuming fifty to one hundred dollars a month for the full thirty-five year sentence... $20,000 to $40,000 roughly.

Do you have any idea how much we will spend to incarcerate her?  Heck, there are generals who will waste more money than that (in stand-around-doing-nothing time) just deciding which side of a bush to pee on.  With how high-profile her case is, we could raise that online in a couple of hours.

The question is not money.  It's about whether a convicted spy deserves treatment, whether she has to earn it*, and if so how.

(*There are lots of transexual people who can't afford HRT.  Are they any less deserving than Manning?)

Quote from: musicofthenight on August 22, 2013, 01:20:37 PM
(*There are lots of transexual people who can't afford HRT.  Are they any less deserving than Manning?)

Ditto +1

I feel most of these questions and complications are inevitable because we are still so barbaric as to have a punitive justice system and putting people in cages, except maybe for the truly extreme cases when it's necessary to protect people, but even then it should be far more humane that they are now.

http://www.blackandpink.org/

Quote from: musicofthenight on August 22, 2013, 01:20:37 PM
Money is a non-issue.  I admit I don't know exactly what hormones cost, but assuming fifty to one hundred dollars a month for the full thirty-five year sentence... $20,000 to $40,000 roughly.

Do you have any idea how much we will spend to incarcerate her?  Heck, there are generals who will waste more money than that (in stand-around-doing-nothing time) just deciding which side of a bush to pee on.  With how high-profile her case is, we could raise that online in a couple of hours.

The question is not money.  It's about whether a convicted spy deserves treatment, whether she has to earn it*, and if so how.

(*There are lots of transexual people who can't afford HRT.  Are they any less deserving than Manning?)

Manning is a lot of things, but spy she is not.  Even she was acquitted of the charges of aiding the enemy.  I don't feel that is the proper term.

Yes there are a lot of trans people in prison.  Each one, in my opinion, is deserving of the medical treatment.  It's not about liking Manning or anything.  And there is no way for Manning to earn it.  It's about whether the military will cover this and allow her the control to transition.  If they don't cover it, they won't allow it.  I don't think that is right, yet I doubt this would be covered under the 8th amendment.  But to answer your question, if it goes to court, the decision will have an impact on al trans prisoners. 

Quote from: Anna! on August 22, 2013, 01:13:11 PM
Yeah, that's really easy to understand.  I even found myself thinking "Why does she get transition paid for but I have to pay for it myself?".  I'm not sure how I want things to go here, but I think I would like it best if she was allowed HRT but had to pay for it herself (the same goes for medical treatments to other inmates, too! )

Keep in mind that there are civilians without insurance who have to pay for their cardiac medical bills and other treatments that prisoners get treated for.  People have gone to jail for the sole purpose of having their illness treated.  It's sad that our insurance system is so backwards; however, I don't think we should take it out on the prisoner.  The real culprate is the failing insurance system and the convenient loopholes they have in their policies.  America has great healthcare, but the insurance system and the prices are out of control. 

Just a reminder that thisis a support site and to keep the discussion within TOS. :)

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 03:43:09 PM
Just a reminder that this is a support site and to keep the discussion within TOS. :)

Strongly seconded.

Let me add, also, that the military justice system is authorized in the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8.) as a system separate from the regular civil and criminal courts.

Though the military justice system is governed by the precepts of the Constitution, much of the Federal civil and criminal case law is inapplicable.

Quote from: Jamie D on August 22, 2013, 04:03:12 PM
Strongly seconded.

Let me add, also, that the military justice system is authorized in the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8.) as a system separate from the regular civil and criminal courts.

Though the military justice system is governed by the precepts of the Constitution, much of the Federal civil and criminal case law is inapplicable.

For arguments sake, if Manning sued the government for the ability to transition by claiming it violated the 8th amendment and he won his case, wouldn't that have further implications?  Under selective incorporation the states have to follow the incorporated amendments in the bill or rights.  If it is deemed that denying treatment for this is cruel and unusual punishment, wouldn't other prisoners have the ability to use this case as a precedent to try and be covered for their transition?  Criminal law has never been my main interest, so I acknowledge I could be overlooking something. 

I am really afraid after reading the comments in this article!!

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/latimes/posts/10151791220383010

If you're going to state that transsexualism is a medical disorder or whatever then it follows she HAS to receive treatment unless the military would be willing to deny medication for any other disorder.

Personally I don't care either way for him but this strikes me as a famewhore move a la Snowden. Also, don't think for a second that the public thinks of these whistleblowers as anything less than tedious.

Remember, that she was treated for GID before she was arrested and convicted.  This has been a part of her life way before everything.  Let's not judge her motives even if you have a personal disagreement with her actions.  I think the comments above about this remaining a support site is important for everyone to keep in mind no matter what your personal feelings are.

Quote from: learningtolive on August 22, 2013, 04:28:08 PM
For arguments sake, if Manning sued the government for the ability to transition by claiming it violated the 8th amendment and he won his case, wouldn't that have further implications?  Under selective incorporation the states have to follow the incorporated amendments in the bill or rights.  If it is deemed that denying treatment for this is cruel and unusual punishment, wouldn't other prisoners have the ability to use this case as a precedent to try and be covered for their transition?  Criminal law has never been my main interest, so I acknowledge I could be overlooking something.

It is unlikely that any civil action brought by Manning would be heard in the Federal courts, as Bradley is still, technically, in the military.  It is definitely not a State matter.

The Fifth Amendment requires that offenses in the armed forces be dealt with by military law.  The "Exemption Clause" in the Amendment reads.

... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

This is why in the military, you have no access to "bail."

Of course, Mr. Obama, as the putative commander-in-chief of the armed forces, could issue such an order, to supply Manning with HRT hormones or any other treatment.

Like Jamie said, military cases are not binding precedent, only persuasive. Let's say it does end up going to court, Manning's lawyers will likely try to use other persuasive cases, such as the one in Massachusetts (I think it was MA) allowing a MTF prisoner to transition. Manning being in a military prison would mean that it has to be brought under military rule since it's in military jurisdiction. Military law can get very confusing, it's something one needs to specialize in. Depending on what Manning is classified as, rules that would apply to ordinary (as in non-military prisoners) prisoners might not apply to him.

Seems like it could be an interesting law review article.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:05:53 PM

Seems like it could be an interesting law review article.

And I know just the guy to write it!!

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:05:53 PM
Like Jamie said, military cases are not binding precedent, only persuasive. Let's say it does end up going to court, Manning's lawyers will likely try to use other persuasive cases, such as the one in Massachusetts (I think it was MA) allowing a MTF prisoner to transition. Manning being in a military prison would mean that it has to be brought under military rule since it's in military jurisdiction. Military law can get very confusing, it's something one needs to specialize in. Depending on what Manning is classified as, rules that would apply to ordinary (as in non-military prisoners) prisoners might not apply to him.

Seems like it could be an interesting law review article.

Quote from: Jamie D on August 22, 2013, 04:58:00 PM
It is unlikely that any civil action brought by Manning would be heard in the Federal courts, as Bradley is still, technically, in the military.  It is definitely not a State matter.

The Fifth Amendment requires that offenses in the armed forces be dealt with by military law.  The "Exemption Clause" in the Amendment reads.

... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

This is why in the military, you have no access to "bail."

Of course, Mr. Obama, as the putative commander-in-chief of the armed forces, could issue such an order, to supply Manning with HRT hormones or any other treatment.

Admittedly, this is a weakness of mine.  As someone who studied political science and hopes to go to grad school, I feel a bit embarrassed about my limited knowledge in criminal law.

I do, however, have some follow up questions.  Could there be a reverse precedent set?  Let's say Manning was to sue and win her case, even if it is unlikely.  Could that decision be used as a precedent for non military prisoners who hope to transition in prison?   If she effectively uses the 8th amendment, could it be applied to non military prisoners. I was under the impression that it could be used, but I may be wrong. Also, if she doesn't have the same rights as regular prisoners, how would she argue effectively (or attempt at doing so) that she has the right for this treatment?  I keep hearing they would have to use the 8th amendment to make their case, but it appears that you are both saying that she likely doesn't have standing.  Personally, I would agree with that, but I'm curious about how else she would try to argue for it.

Hey, if you write a law review article, please let me know.  I'm a political science nerd who loves this stuff, even if I ignore legal issues more than I should,lol.

Edited to correct wrong pronouns.  No harm was intended as I did it unintentionally.

If I do write an article, I will post it.

I am not saying she doesn't have standing for a case, she certainly does. She could argue it's cruel and unusual by using other persuasive cases, like the one in MA and probably some from other countries or so, or see if there's some sort of rule that applied to the US military about treatment of prisoners with medical conditions. If Manning does win a case, it would be persuasive precedent if he won in the military court, it might be binding precedent if it was in the US Supreme Court (that would probably depend if they say the military needs to give Manning treatment based on the 8th Amendment or some other law/rule).

Any case can be used in legal arguments,  just not all of them are binding on the judge hearing the case.

Here's another article:
Life as a Transgender Woman in a Military Prison: What's Ahead for Chelsea Manning
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/life-transgender-woman-military-prison-whats-ahead-chelsea-manning/68613/
Source: The Atlantic Wire Author: Rebecca Greenfield

"How will Chelsea Manning's residency in a military facility affect her ongoing transition from male to female? Profoundly, because when it comes to medical issues of gender and identity, prison and military cultures still have a long way to go. In fact, Chelsea's residency in a military, rather than a civilian, facility will probably make her ongoing transition even more difficult. Below, an outline of the treatment Chelsea is likely to receive while serving her sentence. "


----------------------
Edit: Sorry! My brian is stuck!

I woke up to hear this in the news headlines this morning and immediately thought good on you Chelsea, but then I thought wait, this poor girl has a lot of supporters and also a lot people that would like to see her head on a pike, the news coverage that I've seen in Australia suggests that there are a few less supporters and many more haters.
I really don't want to get into a political debate (sorry learningtolive :) ) but as people said at the beginning of the post this sort of high profile transitioning could have really positive and negative effects on peoples beliefs and opinions.

Quote from: Michelle G on August 22, 2013, 04:35:18 PM
I am really afraid after reading the comments in this article!!

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/latimes/posts/10151791220383010

So am I! Yes, there are a lot of dangerously ignorant complete #$@%*($#%($%@'s who say whatever they like because they can get away with it on the internet (I believe I just wrote the definition for trolling) in the world and I'm sure we've all met at least one if not more. These people can be very vocal and can unfortunately be very influential towards people that haven't yet made their mind up about something.
I guess what I am trying to say is they might use Chelsea's transition to create negative impressions of the trans community.

At the same time I'm sure a lot of people like me who just heard this on the news have just gone and read an article on transgender people and are a little bit more enlightened/aware/interested than they were yesterday.

Hopefully the later.

Either way, all the best for Chelsea and her transition :)

(Edit: I decided to remove a bit of more colourful language talking about trolls. Fill in the blanks! :) )

 :police:

It's Chelsea Manning. Misgendering will not be tolerated on this site, and no one should be usng male pronouns when referencing her.

Quote from: Ave on August 22, 2013, 04:36:53 PM
Personally I don't care either way for him but this strikes me as a famewhore move a la Snowden. Also, don't think for a second that the public thinks of these whistleblowers as anything less than tedious.

Manning sent letters to her therapist about being transgender before the leaks. She is taking the first opportunity she has to do this - Her trial just ended, and she is about to go to prison. Seems like a perfect time for her to bring all this up, I think.

And, for the record, Snowden is anything but a fame whore. He has refused all media interviews save one at the beginning to Hong Kong. There is a reason the only picture floating around of him on every news site is a still from that first video - that is all anyone has on him. He had a press conference after being a capsule hotel in Russia for over a month, and all he did was read from a prepared statement.

I don't consider Manning a whistle blower per se, but Snowden certainly is. Many people do not find it 'tedious' to find out issues the government is lying about.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on August 22, 2013, 06:19:12 PM
:police:

It's Chelsea Manning. Misgendering will not be tolerated on this site, and no one should be usng male pronouns when referencing her.

Thanks for the reminder.  It was done unintentionally on my part, and I corrected it. It's funny for somebody whose sensitive myself about using the correct pronouns, I now see how it can be difficult to correct yourself and catch misgenders when you had a different perception of a person a few hours earlier.  Anyone who read my unedited post, forgive me for using the wrong pronouns without catching it. 

Quote from: cynths on August 22, 2013, 06:11:01 PM
I woke up to hear this in the news headlines this morning and immediately thought good on you Chelsea, but then I thought wait, this poor girl has a lot of supporters and also a lot people that would like to see her head on a pike, the news coverage that I've seen in Australia suggests that there are a few less supporters and many more haters.
SNIP

I believe it is inaccurate to paint those who felt justice was done in this case as "haters."  That is almost as absurd as labeling Manning supporters as "anarchists."

The military justice system is not "unjust."  It is just different from the civil and criminal justice systems, for reasons that were plainly obvious to those who fought for the foundation of the US, as well as in the following generations.  It has different procedures and rules.  But is no less just.

The US military justice system is authorized in the Constitution, and is vested in the power of Congress to organize, raise, and support the military, and in the President's role as C-in-C.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:57:29 PM
If I do write an article, I will post it.

I am not saying she doesn't have standing for a case, she certainly does. She could argue it's cruel and unusual by using other persuasive cases, like the one in MA and probably some from other countries or so, or see if there's some sort of rule that applied to the US military about treatment of prisoners with medical conditions. If Manning does win a case, it would be persuasive precedent if he won in the military court, it might be binding precedent if it was in the US Supreme Court (that would probably depend if they say the military needs to give Manning treatment based on the 8th Amendment or some other law/rule).

My guess is that any Federal Court would look at the case and say, "This is a military matter and does not belong here."

Quote----------------------
Edit: Sorry! My brian is stuck!

Who's "Brian"?  And why is he stuck?? >:-)

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 22, 2013, 05:57:29 PM
If I do write an article, I will post it.

I am not saying she doesn't have standing for a case, she certainly does. She could argue it's cruel and unusual by using other persuasive cases, like the one in MA and probably some from other countries or so, or see if there's some sort of rule that applied to the US military about treatment of prisoners with medical conditions. If Manning does win a case, it would be persuasive precedent if he won in the military court, it might be binding precedent if it was in the US Supreme Court (that would probably depend if they say the military needs to give Manning treatment based on the 8th Amendment or some other law/rule).

Any case can be used in legal arguments,  just not all of them are binding on the judge hearing the case.

Here's another article:
Life as a Transgender Woman in a Military Prison: What's Ahead for Chelsea Manning
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/life-transgender-woman-military-prison-whats-ahead-chelsea-manning/68613/
Source: The Atlantic Wire Author: Rebecca Greenfield

"How will Chelsea Manning's residency in a military facility affect her ongoing transition from male to female? Profoundly, because when it comes to medical issues of gender and identity, prison and military cultures still have a long way to go. In fact, Chelsea's residency in a military, rather than a civilian, facility will probably make her ongoing transition even more difficult. Below, an outline of the treatment Chelsea is likely to receive while serving her sentence. "


----------------------
Edit: Sorry! My brian is stuck!

Thanks for the follow up.  I see what you're saying.  It would be interesting if this case made it to the Supreme Court, but I don't see that happening.  I'm going to have to do some research tonight to figure out the whole legal logistics involved in this particualr situation.  Should make for some long, tedious and fun research! :)

Chelsea Manning: Testing The Military On Transgender Issues
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/22/214516215/chelsea-manning-testing-the-military-on-transgender-issues
Author: Eyder Peralta Source: NPR

"Today, when Manning announced that he wants to be known as Chelsea Manning, it became clear that the subtext would become the focus and that Manning will now likely test military policy on transgender issues. . . Belkin said that like they do for people suffering with asthma, the military has medical regulations that list being a "transexual" as an "unallowable medical condition.""

"Herman says that as far as veterans are concerned, that may be changing. "The [Veteran's Administration] system has over the past few years — since 2011 — been working hard to increase cultural competency... they've been working to improve health care delivery for transgendered people in the VA system," Herman said."

:( I feel so bad for her, I will be honest I've never given a huge amount of thought to trans persons in prison, but given how horrifyingly fascist the US government has become and the enormous miscarriage of justice that's happened. with this injustice this is making me re-evaluate my views in a big way.

Quote from: cynths on August 22, 2013, 06:11:01 PM
I woke up to hear this in the news headlines this morning and immediately thought good on you Chelsea, but then I thought wait, this poor girl has a lot of supporters and also a lot people that would like to see her head on a pike, the news coverage that I've seen in Australia suggests that there are a few less supporters and many more haters.
I really don't want to get into a political debate (sorry learningtolive :) ) but as people said at the beginning of the post this sort of high profile transitioning could have really positive and negative effects on peoples beliefs and opinions.

So am I! Yes, there are a lot of dangerously ignorant complete #$@%*($#%($%@'s who say whatever they like because they can get away with it on the internet (I believe I just wrote the definition for trolling) in the world and I'm sure we've all met at least one if not more. These people can be very vocal and can unfortunately be very influential towards people that haven't yet made their mind up about something.
I guess what I am trying to say is they might use Chelsea's transition to create negative impressions of the trans community.

At the same time I'm sure a lot of people like me who just heard this on the news have just gone and read an article on transgender people and are a little bit more enlightened/aware/interested than they were yesterday.

Hopefully the later.

Either way, all the best for Chelsea and her transition :)

(Edit: I decided to remove a bit of more colourful language talking about trolls. Fill in the blanks! :) )

That's all right, Cynth.  As a veteran of the US armed forces, I did not like what Chelsea did.  Whether it was leaking to the media or giving it to the Chinese, makes no difference to me.  Her transitioning may have some detrimental effects on us, even though she had sought it before the leaking.  Gay people have rights in the military as seen the other day when a gay sailor on a submarine proposed to his boyfriend at the end of the cruise right on the dock.  We do not have the right to stay in the military and transition as of yet.  Despite the 30 year sentence, the local expert laywer wags has stated that she may be out in 7-8 years on good behavior.

  Joelene

Quote from: Anna! on August 22, 2013, 01:13:11 PM
"Why does she get transition paid for but I have to pay for it myself?".  I'm not sure how I want things to go here, but I think I would like it best if she was allowed HRT but had to pay for it herself (the same goes for medical treatments to other inmates, too! )

When a person is a inmate of the State, the State is responsible for their living and health, but if your a free person, then you are responsible for your own living and health, you are free to do as you please.
Chelsea Manning is an inmate, the State is responsible for her health, she suffers from Gender Dysphoria, the State has to pay for her treatment, that's the way things are, its a good time for her, if things go well for her, she could be eligible for parole when her transition is complete, it would be a new start and a 2nd chance at life and happiness, leaving her old life behind that brought her so much grief and unhappiness, everybody deserves a 2nd chance.

Quote from: pretty pauline on August 23, 2013, 08:39:26 AM
When a person is a inmate of the State, the State is responsible for their living and health, but if your a free person, then you are responsible for your own living and health, you are free to do as you please.
Chelsea Manning is an inmate, the State is responsible for her health, she suffers from Gender Dysphoria, the State has to pay for her treatment, that's the way things are, its a good time for her, if things go well for her, she could be eligible for parole when her transition is complete, it would be a new start and a 2nd chance at life and happiness, leaving her old life behind that brought her so much grief and unhappiness, everybody deserves a 2nd chance.

Yeah, that all makes sense.  Last I heard she probably wouldn't get treatment, though :(.

A full presidential pardon would solve SO many complications right now. I'll just go hold my breath while I wait for that.

Quote from: dalebert on August 23, 2013, 09:15:14 AM
A full presidential pardon would solve SO many complications right now. I'll just go hold my breath while I wait for that.

Ah, Dalebert, I think you're turning blue!  :o

Fair point guys, to say the least this case brought up many issues which is obvious. Also I try not to get involved with other countries politics as I'm sure I haven't seen the full picture only what I can glean from the media (except when it's obvious like Russia right now with their anti-gay laws, WTF?!), so I'll bite my tongue.
IMO though, regardless of which and how she was convicted, Chelsea still has basic human rights and not being able to address her GD could be likened to torture as I'm sure we can all empathise.

Love the comments section

"Er I don't wan't to pay fer da freaks hormones dis is 'Murica!"

That's what you are worried about paying for? A prescription? These people seriously need to get their taxpayer complaint priorities straight.

Kia Ora,

Bradley imprisoned...Chelsea set free...

Stay strong Chelsea...

Metta Zenda :)

Miss Mannings demise aside, after reading so so many awful comments on the news stories I feel this is going to create quite a negative setback on trans awareness in the general publics minds.

Quote from: Michelle G on August 24, 2013, 01:53:21 AM
Miss Mannings demise aside, after reading so so many awful comments on the news stories I feel this is going to create quite a negative setback on trans awareness in the general publics minds.

It's hard to say... I see those kinds of comments on every trans news story I read, so it feels like "par for the course" to me (but they still make me sad)

I applaud Susan's for enforcing fair discourse about this topic. I am a member elsewhere and am very disappointed right now at the behavior on that site.

As for federal courts, they have jurisdiction over the military in any matter related to human rights, constitutional questions, etc. Is someone here suggesting that the Supreme Court cannot force the military courts to accept a SCOTUS decision? The military has often reacted in direct response to a SCOTUS decision. In fact, the recent SCOTUS decision striking down DOMA resulted in the military beginning to pay spousal benefits to service members who are legally wed to their partner.

TL;DR:  the short answer is yes, if a federal court rules that denial of HRT and transitioning is "cruel and unusual", then the military justice system has to abide by this.

I think the ACLU is fully qualified to know this, else why would they be threatening to sue in federal courts? Those folks are lawyers and know exactly where to file such a case.

I don't think that is the case at all.  You can go back at least to the American Civil War and see what the US Supreme Court did in Ex parte Milligan.

What I said was, as Manning is still in the military, they would not normally have recourse to the federal civil courts, and never to the state courts.

If there is a Constitutional issue, then perhaps that could happen.

We must remember that Mr. Obama can order treatment today, and it would happen immediately.  I wonder why he has not done so?

Quote from: Michelle G on August 24, 2013, 01:53:21 AM
Miss Mannings demise aside, after reading so so many awful comments on the news stories I feel this is going to create quite a negative setback on trans awareness in the general publics minds.

Reading internet comments is a waste of time. You cant take internet comments as a serious litmus test of how the population feels. For example if you took internet comments on any story involving a black criminal you could assume that 90% of the population were devout members of the Klan  ::)

Manning, prison and hormone therapy
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/8/22/manning-prison-andhormonetherapy.html
Source: Al Jazeera America Author: Wilson Dizzard

"Allyson Robinson is a West Point graduate and former Army officer who in 2007 began her transition from male to female. She was, until recently, executive director of OutServe, an advocacy and member organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender service personnel. In an interview with Al Jazeera Thursday, she spoke about the case of Chelsea E. Manning, the Army private sentenced to 35 years in military prison for leaking classified documents. Manning was known as Pfc. Bradley Manning until Thursday, when she issued a press release announcing her gender preference."

-----------------

I believe the woman doing the interview is the same woman who is in the documentary in this post: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,147281.0.html

  It is difficult to get the US military to change their rules.  The President or the Joint Chiefs may, but the Legislative and the Justice Departments, very difficult.  Do you notice that very little is done to improve the situation at "Gitmo?"  Don't expect too much sympathy from the President though, he was very unhappy about the leaks.  He has other pressing needs. 

  Joelene

Quote from: Jamie D on August 25, 2013, 03:32:52 PM
I don't think that is the case at all.  You can go back at least to the American Civil War and see what the US Supreme Court did in Ex parte Milligan.

What I said was, as Manning is still in the military, they would not normally have recourse to the federal civil courts, and never to the state courts.

If there is a Constitutional issue, then perhaps that could happen.

We must remember that Mr. Obama can order treatment today, and it would happen immediately.  I wonder why he has not done so?

Obama would never sign off on that.  That would take a little political courage.  Seriously, the right would complain that Obama is causing the destruction of the country's moral fabric by allowing Manning to have access to hrt.  Embracing the gay community is not as politically risky as embracing the trans community.  He doesn't want that sort of pressure. Plus, he wants to appear tough on Manning in general.  I don't approve of that, but that's what it will be.

Well, if Manning's suit claims that denial of hrt violates the 8th amendment, wouldn't that be considered a constitutional issue? 

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 25, 2013, 07:56:16 PM
Manning, prison and hormone therapy
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/8/22/manning-prison-andhormonetherapy.html
Source: Al Jazeera America Author: Wilson Dizzard

"Allyson Robinson is a West Point graduate and former Army officer who in 2007 began her transition from male to female. She was, until recently, executive director of OutServe, an advocacy and member organization for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender service personnel. In an interview with Al Jazeera Thursday, she spoke about the case of Chelsea E. Manning, the Army private sentenced to 35 years in military prison for leaking classified documents. Manning was known as Pfc. Bradley Manning until Thursday, when she issued a press release announcing her gender preference."

-----------------

I believe the woman doing the interview is the same woman who is in the documentary in this post: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,147281.0.html

In reading the article, I think there is a common misconception.

Manning is not going to the Leavenworth Federal Prison.  Instead, Manning going to the United States Disciplinary Barracks located at Fort Leavenworth.  There is no "women's section" in the barracks.  Manning will be treated as a male, like all of the other prisoners.

Split off discussion of speculation of merits of Governor Romney vs President Obama and moved to Politics. It isn't relevant to the original topic of Ms. Manning's gender transition.

News Admin  :police:

At least something good to do other than start new Vietnam in Syria or anger people breaking the constitution. In democratic society there should be no place for power by fear. The US military justice is based mainly on fear.  You can get a death sentence for being mentally ill and being interpretted to desert. The brave goverment (in this issue) in the UK pardoned this century people sentenced death during thw WW1.

Quote from: formerMTF on August 28, 2013, 12:27:57 PM
At least something good to do other than start new Vietnam in Syria or anger people breaking the constitution. In democratic society there should be no place for power by fear. The US military justice is based mainly on fear.  You can get a death sentence for being mentally ill and being interpretted to desert. The brave goverment (in this issue) in the UK pardoned this century people sentenced death during thw WW1.

I'm confused.  What is it you are referring to when you say it's "something good to do"?  Are you talking about pardoning Manning or allowing her hrt or something else?  Sorry, I just didn't catch what you were going for. 

The supreme court and the president control the military justice. Current politically motivated supreme court will not rule for her. People in military prisons do not have any rights than what the military gives. The military prisons use the original birthcertiface for the sex determination even fully transtioned and legally female. They don't seem to mind the rules that have become generally accepped in the civilian society. It needs the supreme  or the president to intervene. And that is not going to happen. They can do anything they want to Ms.Manning. This is not anymore a civilized society governed by the sense of rightness. It is a society in deep moral crises with potential future of sinister dictatorship.

Quote from: Jamie D on August 25, 2013, 03:32:52 PM
I don't think that is the case at all.  You can go back at least to the American Civil War and see what the US Supreme Court did in Ex parte Milligan.

What I said was, as Manning is still in the military, they would not normally have recourse to the federal civil courts, and never to the state courts.

If there is a Constitutional issue, then perhaps that could happen.

We must remember that Mr. Obama can order treatment today, and it would happen immediately.  I wonder why he has not done so?

Fox news and their ilk would start foaming at the mouth if they thought the President was wasting time on a "man in a dress".

For me Obama showed his true face when he accepped the NDAA. Obama is not anymore up for re-election so he does not have to worry about the media. It is clearly is he strong enough to do the right thing and issue a presidential pardon.

This is not a thread about Obama, please keep things on point and civil.

Quote from: Ave on August 28, 2013, 02:02:16 PM
Fox news and their ilk would start foaming at the mouth if they thought the President was wasting time on a "man in a dress".

So your contention is the the President is afraid of what Fox News Channel thinks?

This issue of Manning's HRT and treatment as a convicted military prisoner, is, in my mind, a moral one.  What is the right thing to do?
.
Manning is in is a military prison and answers to the chain of command - the top commander being the Commander-in-Chief.  I would not worry too much about public opinion

Quote from: Jamie D on August 28, 2013, 06:40:05 PM
So your contention is the the President is afraid of what Fox News Channel thinks?

This issue of Manning's HRT and treatment as a convicted military prisoner, is, in my mind, a moral one.  What is the right thing to do?
.
I would not worry too much about public opinion

Oh hunty, nothing is ever about "morals" in this government or any other one.

Manning lawyer gives more details on gender change
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/27/manning-lawyer-givesmoredetailsongenderchange.html
Author: None listed Source: Al Jazeera America and Associated Press

"Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who was previously known as Bradley Manning, wants estrogen treatments that would promote breast development and other female characteristics -- which she is willing to pay for -- while she's incarcerated at the all-male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., her lawyer, David Coombs, said Monday." She's also not interested in SRS right now and expects to be incarcerated with bio-males.

-----------------

Thought this was interesting, Manning is willing to pay for the treatment herself. Kind of would put to rest a lot of the "I have to pay for my own transition" arguments. Also, Al-JAzeera is using proper feminine pronouns while referring to Manning, which has not been consistently used with other news sources, and uses "Chealsea Manning. . . previously known as Bradley", while other sites I've seen say Bradley first then say Chelsea. Just an observation.

Manning has enough supporters to pay for treatment, and a website set up in her behalf, so that financing it should not be a problem.

I would like to see the issue dealt with on a political level by the Administration (who is in charge of the military), and if necessary, through legislation.

It would be nice to see a line item in the next military appropriations bill directing HRT treatment for GID/GD.

Quote from: Ave on August 28, 2013, 06:51:07 PM
Oh hunty, nothing is ever about "morals" in this government or any other one.

But it should be, don't you think?

Quote from: Jamie D on August 28, 2013, 07:10:16 PM
It would be nice to see a line item in the next military appropriations bill directing HRT treatment for GID/GD.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Because since GID is a medical condition, and hormones is an accepted form of treatment, it wouldn't be fair to make her pay for her treatment while the military prisons likely cover other treatments for condition, like chemo for cancer, etc. What kind of a precedent would that set? Not a very good one IMO. We shouldn't make people pay for things themselves just because the majority finds it disagreeable or the persons crimes to be horrible if there's a duty of the prison to take care of prisoners healthcare.

Quote from: Jamie D on August 28, 2013, 07:11:49 PM
But it should be, don't you think?

In moderation, yes. However,  a government that reliesnon this too much lends itself to human error, fallibility,  and greed. We have to define what version of morals we are going to use.

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 28, 2013, 06:53:32 PM
Manning lawyer gives more details on gender change
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/27/manning-lawyer-givesmoredetailsongenderchange.html
Author: None listed Source: Al Jazeera America and Associated Press

"Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who was previously known as Bradley Manning, wants estrogen treatments that would promote breast development and other female characteristics -- which she is willing to pay for -- while she's incarcerated at the all-male military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., her lawyer, David Coombs, said Monday." She's also not interested in SRS right now and expects to be incarcerated with bio-males.

-----------------

Thought this was interesting, Manning is willing to pay for the treatment herself. Kind of would put to rest a lot of the "I have to pay for my own transition" arguments. Also, Al-JAzeera is using proper feminine pronouns while referring to Manning, which has not been consistently used with other news sources, and uses "Chealsea Manning. . . previously known as Bradley", while other sites I've seen say Bradley first then say Chelsea. Just an observation.

I'm putting two and two together here, it looks to me like Manning will be in the same facility that Calvin Glover is imprisoned in. Glover was convicted of murdering Barry Winchell, who had a relationship with Calpernia Addams. 

Quote from: LearnedHand on August 28, 2013, 07:13:23 PM
Yes, that's what I was thinking. Because since GID is a medical condition, and hormones is an accepted form of treatment, it wouldn't be fair to make her pay for her treatment while the military prisons likely cover other treatments for condition, like chemo for cancer, etc. What kind of a precedent would that set? Not a very good one IMO. We shouldn't make people pay for things themselves just because the majority finds it disagreeable or the persons crimes to be horrible if there's a duty of the prison to take care of prisoners healthcare.

Actually, it is not unknown in other cultures that the prisoner or the prisoners family/supporters can pay for favors.  That is just not part of the American penal tradition.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on August 28, 2013, 07:22:53 PM
I'm putting two and two together here, it looks to me like Manning will be in the same facility that Calvin Glover is imprisoned in. Glover was convicted of murdering Barry Winchell, who had a relationship with Calpernia Addams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._military_prisons

I've never stayed at any of those luxury resorts!

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on August 28, 2013, 09:33:45 PM
I've never stayed at any of those luxury resorts!

A likely story.

Quote from: LordKAT on August 29, 2013, 08:08:51 AM
A likely story.

Anything you may have heard is probably just some vicious...........truth being spread about me!