Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Interesting rebuttal on Chelsea Manning's Op-ed piece in the Guardian.

http://montrealgazette.com/life/turning-the-page-chelsea-manning-not-a-spokesperson-for-transgender-community

It does raise a point worthy of discussion: do we, as a community, want such a divisive person acting as a spokesperson for the community?

I say no.  Manning is a traitor.  People already think we are weird so having one that most people view with disdain as a spokesman will have negative effects on our public image.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with Deborah. Manning does not pass as a credible spokesperson for "us", too much baggage.

Please Deborah, use spokesperson.

I am no fan of Pvt. Manning, but of the five of us involved (four in this thread and Chelsea) only one has done anything as far as publicly speaking is concerned. Give credit where it's due.

I learned writing a long time ago and write spokesman in its generic sense referring to any human being who speaks.  :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't a long time ago, it's the 21st century. Misgendering is disrespectful and allegedly not allowed here.

I don't want her associated with us in the public eye in any way, shape, or form.

I heard Manning say something in her op/ed that I haven't heard any other spokespeople say: That we should have a RIGHT to define ourselves, and we should not have to suffer doctors, judges and laws defining us.

That is everything.

This message needs to be shouted from the rooftops. If Manning weren't doing it, no one would. Sure I would rather someone less notorious deliver the message.

I'm waiting.

Still waiting.

Still waiting.

Nope. No one. Looks like it will have to be Manning.

Would I prefer that someone other than Chelsea Manning were speaking up on behalf of trans* people?  Of course. 

But here's the thing:  Chelsea Manning is speaking up for us all.  Most of her critics, whether in the trans* community or not, are keeping silent. 

Prisons are a place where trans* people are usually either locked up in the wrong gender, which tends to lead to assaults and worse.  If not that, then so,Italy confinement is used. Solitary is only for the worst offenders . . . And trans* people.  Medical care tends to provided . . . unless it's for trans* people transitioning.  A state of affairs that is slowly changing. 

I do not approve of her leak.  But Chelsea Manning is speaking up for one of the most silenced groups of people there is.  I see lots of critics, but I don't see many volunteering to take her place.  So until a prisoner with an equal ability to communicate and a less controversial crime comes along, I would say bravo and pass her the mic. 

Someone needs to stand up and say the things she is saying.  And perhaps she only has the freedom to do it because she really doesn't have much left to lose.  Any volunteers to stand up in her place? 

The prison where she is being held is not a normal federal prison so conditions will be better than elsewhere.

She may be commended for speaking up, but due to her lack of credibility the only ones listening are those who already agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She's actually incarcerated with Calvin Glover, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of Barry Winchell. I hope the names are familiar to everyone.

Yes, there are bad people there but for a variety of reasons conditions in Ft. Leavenworth are better than in regular federal prisons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's debatable. Pvt Manning was forced to stand at attention naked. Pretty sure federal prisoners don't have to do that.

You do know who those two people I mentioned are, right?

Yes.  Federal Prisons are full of murderers.  This one simply got more publicity than most.  Every innocent death is a tragedy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A transgender woman is imprisoned in a male facility with a murderer jailed for a transphobic killing. That isn't my idea of better conditions.

Where would you have her jailed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Deborah on December 09, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
Where would you have her jailed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Russia

water and bread for the traitor, throw the key away... the traitor Manning , a convicted felon, does not speak for me, and should not be our voice either!

Quote from: Deborah on December 09, 2014, 07:38:03 PM
Where would you have her jailed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This would be more appropriate (than Russia)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Consolidated_Brig,_Miramar

The women's prison is problematic in that she never said anything about being transsexual until after trial and sentencing and had never sought out any treatment.

Maybe that's not fair but having this condition isn't fair either.

Where do you draw the line at when convicted felons can have themselves transfered to a women's prison.

And again, the abuse one is likely to sustain at a federal prison is significantly reduced in the Miitary prison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Deborah on December 09, 2014, 08:07:11 PM
The women's prison is problematic in that she never said anything about being transsexual until after trial and sentencing and had never sought out any treatment.

Maybe that's not fair but having this condition isn't fair either.

Where do you draw the line at when convicted felons can have themselves transfered to a women's prison.

And again, the abuse one is likely to sustain at a federal prison is significantly reduced in the Miitary prison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know.  Do any of us need  to acknowledge we're transgender at a pre-specified time? Does it tie into being in legal trouble?

We are far afield from the issue of who should speak for the community, though. I am logging out for the night, but would gladly join in a new thread about transgender imprisonment issues in general tomorrow if someone would like to start one. <wink wink nudge nudge>

It only ties into legal trouble insofar as it could be abused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This topic is in danger of getting out of hand and is edging around the TOS. Please stay on topic and keep things civil. I'll monitor this one closely and lock it for a cool down period if need be.

Play nice, my lovelies.

Did it ever turn out that anything she turned over






Did it ever turn out what she turned over were secret files like the kind of stuff that can hurt our soldiers physically, or just the stuff that hurt the politician's careers and corporation's contracts? 

When I served, our classified stuff could get people killed.  I quit listening to that story after I only heard it threatened political careers for what they wrote in emails that had no security value. 
If it was like this Egyptian guy who just got caught selling info to Egypt on how to sink our new aircraft carriers and kill our sailors, that guy needs a public execution! 
She turned that stuff over for a purpose other than being a traitor.  She was confused since it was her job to secure it, but she has more conviction than alot of people..  her motivation was to stop greed, not hurt anyone..  if that makes her a traitor, then I may be too.  she was misguided but I don't think she could ever hurt anyone.  Yes she needs punished for abandoning her job, so does snowden.  But then how do they try to tell us when they see something is wrong!
It's amazing she still tries to fight for something;)  thank you for bringing this issue up, I don't know much about it or her, but I want to investigate it more.

Quote from: Deborah on December 09, 2014, 08:39:38 PM
It only ties into legal trouble insofar as it could be abused.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but this reminds of all the talk that always comes up whenever any ban is proposed on discrimination against trans* people.  There is always talk about the hypothetical possibility that someone might pretend to be transgender so they could go in the ladies' room and rape women, ogle them, or otherwise abuse being there vs the reality of trans* people being assaulted, fired from jobs, kicked out of homes, etc.

The fact of the matter is that prison conditions are exceptionally awful for transgender people.  Punishment is a part of the system, but so is rehabilitation.  Subjecting a trans* person to solitary confinement or rape, coupled with imprisonment with the wrong gender means increasing the punishment on the trans* person thereby enhancing the punishment above that suffered by other people.  Trans* people receive harsher punishments and an enormously higher likelihood of additional crimes in prison.  So now you've got unequal punishment for the same crime and additional crime being committed.

The rape and mental problems that result also pose problems for prison administrators trying to maintain order and keep an orderly, safe environment.  This creates basic problems for prison administration and interferes with the rehabilitation goal of corrections. 

But the handful of prisons that have housed trans* people to match their gender identities tend to find that these problems all go away.  Aside from being the right thing to do, it also just plain works better and avoids a lot of problems that the prison system would otherwise have to cope with. 

So yes, there is a hypothetical possibility that someone might someday try to abuse the system by falsely claiming to be trans*so they could go to a women's prison.  But there seems to be no sound policy reason for that hypothetical possibility to trump the actual reality of prison rapes, mental health, disproportionate punishment, and other issues that actually exist in reality right now.  And addressing these situations does not mean you cannot also take reasonable steps to avoid those potential abuses. 

Private Manning is not a person who is in prison for survival crimes.  And like I said, I don't approve of her leaks.  But many trans* people are in prisons for survival crimes.  Or for things that ought not to be crimes (CeCe McDonald, for example).  Private Manning's activism on these issues stands to benefit all who end up in prison simply for trying to stay alive. 

And, as already pointed out, there are not a lot of people speaking up for trans* people to be treated fairly in prison.  Private Manning is doing so.  And I can't help noticing that none of the commenters on this thread have yet volunteered to take her place on speaking on this issue. :)

(For those who are wondering, prison conditions are really not my issue at present, but I am working my way into a position to start doing some work on that issue). 

Quote from: ThePhoenix on December 09, 2014, 10:03:01 PM
Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but this reminds of all the talk that always comes up whenever any ban is proposed on discrimination against trans* people.  There is always talk about the hypothetical possibility that someone might pretend to be transgender so they could go in the ladies' room and rape women, ogle them, or otherwise abuse being there vs the reality of trans* people being assaulted, fired from jobs, kicked out of homes, etc.

The fact of the matter is that prison conditions are exceptionally awful for transgender people.  Punishment is a part of the system, but so is rehabilitation.  Subjecting a trans* person to solitary confinement or rape, coupled with imprisonment with the wrong gender means increasing the punishment on the trans* person thereby enhancing the punishment above that suffered by other people.  Trans* people receive harsher punishments and an enormously higher likelihood of additional crimes in prison.  So now you've got unequal punishment for the same crime and additional crime being committed.

The rape and mental problems that result also pose problems for prison administrators trying to maintain order and keep an orderly, safe environment.  This creates basic problems for prison administration and interferes with the rehabilitation goal of corrections. 

But the handful of prisons that have housed trans* people to match their gender identities tend to find that these problems all go away.  Aside from being the right thing to do, it also just plain works better and avoids a lot of problems that the prison system would otherwise have to cope with. 

So yes, there is a hypothetical possibility that someone might someday try to abuse the system by falsely claiming to be trans*so they could go to a women's prison.  But there seems to be no sound policy reason for that hypothetical possibility to trump the actual reality of prison rapes, mental health, disproportionate punishment, and other issues that actually exist in reality right now.  And addressing these situations does not mean you cannot also take reasonable steps to avoid those potential abuses. 

Private Manning is not a person who is in prison for survival crimes.  And like I said, I don't approve of her leaks.  But many trans* people are in prisons for survival crimes.  Or for things that ought not to be crimes (CeCe McDonald, for example).  Private Manning's activism on these issues stands to benefit all who end up in prison simply for trying to stay alive. 

And, as already pointed out, there are not a lot of people speaking up for trans* people to be treated fairly in prison.  Private Manning is doing so.  And I can't help noticing that none of the commenters on this thread have yet volunteered to take her place on speaking on this issue. :)

(For those who are wondering, prison conditions are really not my issue at present, but I am working my way into a position to start doing some work on that issue).

I could volunteer to shout from the rooftops but I have no agency upon which to have people listen to me. Manning does but sadly, it's more notoriety and not at all positive for a great many people.

to be honest more negative than positive

I have as much sympathy as  anybody  for the plight of  transsexual people in prison.

But if after sentencing anyone can claim access to a female prison by claiming to  be transsexual, even with no prior history, what is the test to be sure they are truthfull?

Or do we simply take convicted felons at their word?  We will assume thar people who are dishonest, or worse, for a living will suddenly see the shining light of honesty only after conviction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Deborah on December 09, 2014, 10:28:15 PM
I have as much sympathy as  anybody  for the plight of  transsexual people in prison.

But if after sentencing anyone can claim access to a female prison by claiming to  be transsexual, even with no prior history, what is the test to be sure they are truthfull?

Or do we simply take convicted felons at their word?  We will assume thar people who are dishonest, or worse, for a living will suddenly see the shining light of honesty only after conviction?

Well, in the law we just passed in Maryland this year, we addressed this hypothetical possibility with a definition that says gender identity may be proven by "consistent and uniform assertion of the person's gender identity" or "any other evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as part of the person's core identity."  The point being that the law does not protect pretenders.

I'm not sure why a policy that incorporates similar language would need to be anymore complex than that.

For anything going beyond that, I'd need some actual evidence that there is an actual issue and not just a hypothetical situation that people might imagine, but that is highly unlikely to ever actually occur anywhere like the bathroom thing. 

And of course it bears noting that transsexuals are not the only trans* identity affected by these issues.  All trans* identities are impacted to varying degrees. 

Quote from: Hanazono on December 09, 2014, 11:02:32 PM
That being said, I think Manning should shut up, or quietly (without media attention) put in her requests for whatever rights she deserves. Her crime of treason does not really show trans persons in a positive light and may very well just be fuel / ammo for trans haters to hate on trans persons more.

Minor point, but Chelsea Manning was never convicted of treason.  Her conviction was for espionage, theft, computer fraud, and various military infractions.  She was never even charged with treason. 

There are some transgender who's issue can be tested biologically for a start?  In another thread about surgeries, someone brought up an interesting article about 2nd and 4th finger size to show their gender characteristics.  But I'm talking about the characteristics you find with transgender kids who we know will be better if treated for gender disphoria.  Before this case was so important, I already thought private manning was femanine.  Hope that's not being presumptive.  But in this case, I don't think she is playing games.  If you saw my va card 3 years ago compared to today, you would not offer me such curtesy or a chance. 
But after the estrogen and my frame of mind, sexually, I think the male prisoners would be scared of me;)  I'm almost 6' 250#s sad to say;)
I never served with manning, but I'll stick up for her and what she was and is trying todo.  She is young and misguided, too bad she couldn't have put her efforts to good use for us and this country;)

  Chelsea's statements may be noble, but it is the fact that she did compromise the safety of all coalition forces from the information she released. Newspapers in the past didn't bother with anybody in her situation. That changed during the Vietnam war when the articles from the objectors got better billing than the soldier on the line. It is the same here. As lot of us whom would write to our local paper, we would not get the attention that Chelsea would get. An editor of the opinion page may get about 1000 entries a day submitted, but only a few get published. A controversial name gets top billing over Joe Blow writing about the increase of the burglary break-ins in his neighborhood. Sensationalism sells.

Joelene

How many of the ex service persons here came out while actively serving? I surely didn't.

Quote from: Shannon14 on December 10, 2014, 03:22:57 AM
How many of the ex service persons here came out while actively serving? I surely didn't.

Shannon, get thee to  Roll Call  (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,96755.0.html) if you haven't already done so!

Hugs, Devlyn

I don't think we should be questioning Chelsea's identity here unless we're all prepared to accept a grilling from the world at large over our own statuses. We're supposed to know better.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Wynternight on December 09, 2014, 02:19:49 PM
Interesting rebuttal on Chelsea Manning's Op-ed piece in the Guardian.

It does raise a point worthy of discussion: do we, as a community, want such a divisive person acting as a spokesperson for the community?

The post was pulled, and here's the reason why:

http://montrealgazette.com/life/transgender-issues-moving-on (http://montrealgazette.com/life/transgender-issues-moving-on)

I don't see her as being a divisive person, but what is divisive us all the nonsense surrounding her fitness to speak out on trans issues, and this new article alludes to that.

Quote from: Deborah on December 09, 2014, 02:29:18 PM
Manning is a traitor.  People already think we are weird so having one that most people view with disdain as a spokesman will have negative effects on our public image.

Big deal. Sure, she committed a serious crime, and she's paying the price for that. This is not connected to her gender identity issues, and intelligent people will separate the two.

Chelsea Manning has been remarkably articulate and clear in her comments about trans issues. And her unique status gives her a position to address the military's position on trans inclusion. Consider this:

As an inmate at the US Disciplinary Barracks at Ft Leavenworth she is still a member of the US Army. She is in status, whether she or anyone else likes it or not. She is a servicemember on active duty.

The DoD says you can't be transgender and be in the military. Yet, she is.

Federal law and every government and human rights agency that conducts human rights oversight agrees that prisoners are entitled to necessary medical treatment. Recognized medical and psychiatric entities agree that Gender Dysphoria has established and necessary treatment protocols, including HRT and, if warranted, surgery. Her military psychologists agree. The DoD finds themselves in the position of denying necessary medical treatment to this inmate and thus denying her human rights.

Have you considered that by having committed a prison-worthy crime Chelsea Manning may be THE legitimate spokesperson for trans inclusion in the military, and her very existence is causing the military to re-evalute long held exclusionary policies? She may actually be the key to future trans inclusion!

Quote from: Deborah on December 09, 2014, 07:13:30 PM
Yes, there are bad people there but for a variety of reasons conditions in Ft. Leavenworth are better than in regular federal prisons.

I humbly submit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I was in military law enforcement for a while, and I have had firsthand contact with military prisons and prisoners. I can tell you that military prisons have, shall we say, means of enforcing discipline that are not only prohibited in other federal prisons but would be illegal? We're not necessarily talking Abu Ghraib, but if you think Leavenworth is so peachy then you've probably been watching too many episodes of NCIS.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on December 09, 2014, 10:03:01 PM
 
Private Manning is not a person who is in prison for survival crimes.  And like I said, I don't approve of her leaks.  But many trans* people are in prisons for survival crimes.  Or for things that ought not to be crimes (CeCe McDonald, for example).  Private Manning's activism on these issues stands to benefit all who end up in prison simply for trying to stay alive. 

Manning is no longer a "Private." Manning is now "Prisoner" Manning... a convicted felon...

Yeah, I really don't think someone so unstable their rifle was disabled, and later dumped tens of thousands of pages of sensitive documents on the internet, is really the poster child for trans inclusion. Like it or not, most Americans actually love their country and take a dim view of actions like that. And if we try to excuse her actions by blaming it on untreated GD, the dominant reaction won't be "poor thing! Maybe trans people should be able to serve openly." It'll instead be a shift from "Manning is crazy." To "Transgender people are crazy." And believe me, I've actually seen that shift happen in person.

Yes she has a right to define her identity, but IMO her being openly embraced and supported by the trans community is only going to blow uo in our face.

Quote from: peky on December 10, 2014, 02:05:13 PM
Manning is no longer a "Private." Manning is now "Prisoner" Manning... a convicted felon...

Actually, part of the sentence was reduction from E-2 (Private First Class) to E-1 (Private).  As has been pointed out above, military prisoners cannot be discharged until after their sentence is completed.  This means that Private Manning is, in fact, an active duty member of the military rank of Private.

Again, a minor detail. 

Quote from: Michelle-G on December 10, 2014, 01:45:24 PM
The post was pulled, and here's the reason why:

http://montrealgazette.com/life/transgender-issues-moving-on (http://montrealgazette.com/life/transgender-issues-moving-on)
I humbly submit that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I was in military law enforcement for a while, and I have had firsthand contact with military prisons and prisoners. I can tell you that military prisons have, shall we say, means of enforcing discipline that are not only prohibited in other federal prisons but would be illegal? We're not necessarily talking Abu Ghraib, but if you think Leavenworth is so peachy then you've probably been watching too many episodes of NCIS.

While I do enjoy NCIS, in this case I do know I'm talking about.

I served 20 years in the Army, have sent soldiers to the stockade and visited them. And have been inside the old Disciplinary Barracks.

While there is strict discipline, here are the reasons the conditions are superior to other federal prisons.

* it's not overcrowded and each prisoner has a private cell.
* The prison population is not made up of hardened career criminals.  Instead, all are service members and most are first time offenders.
* the likelihood of abuse by other prisoners is reduced because of both the discipline and the nature of the prison population.

Now, back to NCIS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a thread started so we don't have to keep derailing this one:

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,179510.0.html

Quote from: ThePhoenix on December 10, 2014, 06:26:41 PM
Actually, part of the sentence was reduction from E-2 (Private First Class) to E-1 (Private).  As has been pointed out above, military prisoners cannot be discharged until after their sentence is completed.  This means that Private Manning is, in fact, an active duty member of the military rank of Private.

Again, a minor detail.

Close but no cigar... darling

QuoteThere are two kinds of Soldiers at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. — the ones with no rank or pay, and those with keys.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/leavenworth.htm

I think I can safely close this topic. It went off the rails and never really recovered and since suzi was kind enough to start another thread to discuss the issue this one took a turn to I see no reason for two on the essentially the same discussion. Thank you all.