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

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.

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.

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.

I vote for "It"

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

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...

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...

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

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.

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?