I've never heard of a court decision mandating a specific gender pronoun. What are your thoughts on this?

2015-03-06T10:03:57-05:00

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/06/court-bans-military-from-referring-to-manning-as-he.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Court Bans Military From Referring to Manning as 'He'

Convicted soldier Chelsea Manning has won a small but significant victory in her bid to transition to living as a woman.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 6 at 2015 10:10 AM

2015-03-06T10:10:51-05:00

Can we just get past what s/he wants to be called and focus on what s/he did? Intentionally disclosing classified material to the public openly is a pretty big deal.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 10:12 AM

2015-03-06T10:12:10-05:00

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 10:20 AM

2015-03-06T10:20:07-05:00

I think Bradley is a POS. He is a traitor and he is a criminal.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Mar 6 at 2015 10:20 AM

2015-03-06T10:20:32-05:00

I think it is a stupid waste of time...
not because I have a problem with Manning...I feel for her/him if he/she is having gender identity issues - that must royally suck. Glad it isnt me. Wouldnt wish it on you.
I will call her/him whatever she wants to be called...
Go see a surgeon, go see a psychiatrist, make contact/find support with others in the LGBT community, but leave America alone to go solve problems that are way bigger than Manning...

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 10:40 AM

2015-03-06T10:40:52-05:00

I'd say the crimes were committed as Bradley Manning. Any current reference can be Chelsea all she pleases, but Bradley committed crimes and he must be punished for them. If she wants all proceedings to refer to her as female during the time period the classified information was leaked, then I'd say that just adds to the charges of falsifying information - for enlistment, for security clearances, for handling classified information, etc - because that information was under the custody of Bradley Manning, a male soldier. If Manning wants to be that way about it, let's play ball.

Response by MSgt Bj Jones made Mar 6 at 2015 11:00 AM

2015-03-06T11:00:43-05:00

I think it's ridiculous. I don't believe he should have been permitted gender reconstruction surgery, either. He was convicted of a serious crime for which he was sentenced to 35 years in prison. If he wants to go under the knife to change his gender, he should have to wait till after his sentence has been served. He was sentenced as Bradley Edward Manning, not Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, and that's how he should be referred as. Prison is not supposed to be a place for getting wishes granted. Who is paying for this procedure, anyway? If the US Army is, something is terribly wrong. If taxpayers are paying, that is also wrong. His gender identity issues are not the concern of the Army, the DoD, Leavenworth, and taxpayers. He had gender identity issues prior to his service and self-identified as a homosexual. Given that he could not have afforded the operations before and during his military career, I sort of wonder if he isn't using the system to his advantage. Leavenworth, where Manning is incarcerated, is for male prisoners. Female prisoners are sent to the Naval Consolidated Brig in Miramar. If Manning gets to become a "woman" would he be transferred to Miramar? If Manning would not have gotten military approval to change his gender while serving, then he should definitely not have gotten approval while incarcerated. The military, when ordered to use either non gender specific and female pronouns should respond with, "If Prisoner Manning can tell us the date of LMP (common question for women at OB/GYN appointments), then we'd be more than happy to refer to Prisoner Manning in the feminine pronouns."

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 11:36 AM

2015-03-06T11:36:34-05:00

I vote for "It"

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 6 at 2015 12:01 PM

2015-03-06T12:01:32-05:00

The more I read about this case, the more I'm conflicted.

First off, I'm a former Intelligence Analyst. Let me get that right out there. Manning had a duty to protect classified materials, which he did not do. He pleased guilty to 10 of the 22 charges he faced during Courts Martial. He was convicted of 20 of them in total. He was acquitted of the "aiding the enemy" charge. Generally speaking, what he was acquitted of, and what he plead guilty of made sense. The charges he fought also made sense, as some of them were "modified" in scope. The government went to far, in what they were trying to do. He got 35 years in federal prison for his actions. This is appropriate. If I did what he did, I would expect the same. He released classified information.

Now, let's look at the person. He's obviously unstable. There were signs he was unstable before the incident. His leadership knew things were wrong. They tried to protect him, and it blew up in their faces, and didn't end up protecting Manning at all. This doesn't excuse what Manning did, but it does provide context.

The guys sick. He's been sick for a long time. Before the incident. During the incident. After the incident.

I may despise the guy for what he did, but that doesn't mean I still don't have an obligation to try to get him better. Even if I don't necessarily agree with the treatment.

Like I said, I'm conflicted. I don't like what he did. But he's a prisoner, and we're responsible for his care, and what that entails, whether mental or physical. If that means we have to refer to him by his legal name, or by the feminine pronoun, fine.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 6 at 2015 1:02 PM

2015-03-06T13:02:33-05:00

Why do we have court cases on this? We care about the feelings of criminals so much that we have to change laws now?

Response by SSG Rob Cline made Mar 6 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-03-06T13:04:56-05:00

I will refer to shim as Inmate Manning

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Mar 6 at 2015 1:18 PM

2015-03-06T13:18:59-05:00

I'm wondering why we're giving IT the attention...the POS should be left to do the time. As for having all of us pay for ITS treatments and such-that's complete BS, and the jacked thing is that someone who is free will have to come out of pocket for it-since IT is incarcerated we all have to pay.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 6 at 2015 1:21 PM

2015-03-06T13:21:24-05:00

If there is any question or doubt just refer to the enlistment contract where the individual identified their sex themselves.

My question, is there some clever lawyer gamesmanship going on here where - Would this mean he is no longer the one that committed the offense and thus should not be incarcerated?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 6 at 2015 1:27 PM

2015-03-06T13:27:37-05:00

Why are we wasting government money on the he/she when there are veterans that served honorably are getting their benefits cut.... I believe we should not pay for any of this person's medical issues unless they are for emergency or preventive regular medicine.... Hormone treatment is above and beyond what we should be doing for a traitor... He committed the crime as a male, his identity issues should not be a taxpayers issue to pay for it... He should have to pay for it himself... Criminals should not have more rights than everyone else...

Response by SPC David Ade made Mar 13 at 2015 10:48 AM

2015-03-13T10:48:31-04:00

I work in a jail that houses ICE inmates, we had a person undergoing gender reassignment. Anatomically they were male but we were legally obligated to use feminine pronouns. Eventually they housed this person with females. So if she want's to be caused Chelsea that's fine but Chelsea still has to do the time.