Chaos Computer Club Supports Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden
ccc.de
ccc.de
> Donations
> We gladly accept any donation, even considerable sums.
Bank account of the CCC e. V.:
Chaos Computer Club e. V.
IBAN DE41 2001 0020 0599 0902 01
BIC PBNKDEFF
https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden (scroll down to Other options)
Location for Chelsea Mannings defense/appeal fund:
http://couragetoresist.org/2010/09/chelsea-manning-defense-f...
Snowden had a purpose and a plan, and executed it while attempting to keep people from getting hurt. Chelsea Manning lashed out at an army that didn't support her and put her in the wrong position. The military may have mistreated her, but they're still not the same thing.
Chelsea Manning was a confused person when she released the documents. She felt isolated from the people around her and searched for inclusion elsewhere. She developed a friendly relationship with Wikileaks personnel, and sent them hundreds of thousands of random documents. Later, she sent the helicopter video and hundreds of thousands more random documents.
That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing. That's a person unhappy with where they are lashing out and in the process occasionally hitting the mark.
The military subsequently mistreated her, and she should never have been in the position to do this in the first place. She ended up telling people that she was the one who leaked all the documents, when she didn't have to say anything at all. That doesn't make her a crusader or hero.
Snowden, on the other hand, was valued and paid well, and sacrificed that. He specifically targeted information that he believed was unconscionable and unconstitutional, and was careful about who he trusted with it and what he released. He had a well-articulated and thought-through purpose and has effected change through it.
The US invasion in Iraq was based on lies and caused death, destruction, violence, torture, etc. for many humans.
Manning helped to expose some of these actions.
> That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing.
Yeah, she should have done it in some more orderly way. WTF?
If I'm upset and download a bunch of documents onto a flash drive and send it to a person that is nice to me, and it just so happens that in amongst the hundreds of thousands of miscellaneous documents is some scrap of evidence of wrongdoing, it doesn't make me a hero for doing it.
If on the other hand I find that evidence and expose it purposefully because I have principles, that's another story.
Intent has meaning when you're defending a person's actions.
Also according Glenn Greenwald Snowden was inspired by Manning. That right there is reason enough to support her.
I'm sexist. :\
I guess this isn't new though, we have Cassius Clay / Muhammad Ali.
I suggest reading http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender for more context.
In particular, you should refer to Chelsea as she would want -- with her current name and her expressed gender pronoun preference (e.g., use 'her' where you use 'his' above). Also, "gender association" is not a common formulation.
In terms of capturing the nuance of acts prior to public transitioning, the above link has some suggestions:
Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition.
Ideally a story will not use pronouns associated with a person's birth sex when referring to the person's life prior to transition. Try to write transgender people's stories from the present day, instead of narrating them from some point in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns.I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
Edit: HN garbled the wikimedia URL, so I used a shortener.
That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). Chelsea Manning has clearly stated that she is a woman and should be referred to as a woman.
> I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that confusion isn't addressed promptly and often).
If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at all, so you really aren't feeling torn. Bottom line, Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such. You say you are offended, but what you are really saying is that you feel that you know her gender better than she does. You don't. Your discomfort with trans folks is your own issue and to misgender someone is hugely disrespectful.
> I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present.
> That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people).
I don't believe this is true. If a community solves a problem of how the public at large should act, but the public does not accept or follow that solution, the problem is not solved. I was simply asking what type of adoption the solution I was presented had seen. If it's seeing widespread adoption, then this discussion has little meaning (beyond discussing technical merits of different approaches), because I don't think anything would change. I'm fine with that, besides thinking that history gets a bit more confusing.
> If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at
No, I'm trying to weigh my respect for the individual and their desires against societies desires and needs, as well as what we may perceive as best for society (even if it's not something they value at the time).
> Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such.
That's fine, I never stated she shouldn't be. I'm simply torn on what I think should be the best way to refer to her in the past tense, for the same reason I refer to my sic year old self as a boy, and not as a man. I'm a man now, I was a boy then. I am open to arguments to sway me though. I'm not pushing an agenda, just trying to discuss something that I encountered.
> Your discomfort with trans folks
This is the projection I was referring to. I thought I was pretty clear that I was uncomfortable with the historical record changing on someone's future decision. That this decision is common to transgender people is irrelevant to be points. If you want to argue that gender and name are important enough to warrant the changes, that's fine. If you can't make the argument without referring to transgender people, that may be a sign the argument needs refinement, or may have some baked in assumptions that don't hold. For example, I personally hold name and gender to be of equal importance. Maybe that's not the case for you, or any number of others. That may be a bad assumption on either of our parts.
> There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present.
And where was I saying we should misgender them in the present? I don't think it's misgendering someone to refer to them as "he" when referring to them at some point when they referred to themselves with that pronoun, and as "she" in the present when that's how they refer to themselves. But maybe my thoughts in that are tied to some assumptions that need to be shaken. Like I said, I'm open to discussion, but please keep the attacks to yourself, at least until you've given me the benefit of a doubt.
For example, we don't refer to a block of marble as a statue until it has become one. When referring to its past, we don't generally refer to it as a statue until it has become one. I was a boy before I was a man, when referring to that period of my life, expect anyone to refer to me as a boy (or child), and not my current state.
To be absolutely clear, I have no problem referring to someone as they desire in the present or future, but I've yet to see a good reason (beyond "it's disrespectful!", with little or no explanation) why a change in name or gender requires a rewriting of history. I would be happy to have an argument put forth I could get behind, it would hopefully make this less confusing in the future, and cause less friction if I misstep.
As such, I believe you should refer to Manning as Chelsea if she is the subject, but may refer to her as Bradley if the leak is the subject. It would be helpful to qualify her name as "Chelsea Manning, who was at the time known as Bradley", "Bradley Manning, who later changed her name to Chelsea", or some similar construction for audiences who are not well aware of her, to help them connect historical knowledge to your topic.
The question of gender earlier in one's life in most stories is not even relevant and there is really no need to discuss it at all. However, in Manning's case the question of gender does appear to be somewhat relevant, since her motive appears to have included concerns about how the Army treated (or failed to treat) her own gender disorder.
Except that gender neutral singular pronouns are not used much in English where they exist (there is a singular they, but it's uncommon it's used). But I think focusing on this is missing the point. Note my reference to Cassius Clay. I'm more interested in that an identifier changes. That the gender specific also changed is just an additional complication, but once the rules on the name are clear, the rules on the pronoun would be obvious, I think.
Edit: spoken tongue-in-cheek of course, but I've run into this before where names were updated some places but not others... for a while I thought the Synthesis OS kernel must have been written by a pair of people because I kept seeing references to Henry and Alexia based on which paper I was reading
There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely edit this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly misgendering this person. Secondly, being trans isn't about gender association, it is expressing and living as your gender, period. 'Gender association' implies that there is some true gender rather than what Chelsea Manning has stated and that is very transphobic whether you realize it or not.
> What's considered the current best way to describe this, that Bradley Manning released the documents (past tense) and now Chelsea Manning needs support (present tense), or that Chelsea Manning released documents and now needs support?
The latter. Chelsea Manning released these documents and now needs support. If you are speaking to specific historical information, sometimes you may need to refer to the previous name. However, it is rare to need to phrase something this way and usually such phrasings serve to portray being trans in a negative light.
> The first way feels like it's more useful for expressing the situation to those that lived through it, but may be ignoring the identity of the person in question. Referring to the person through the later moniker in all instances may be confusing to those that miss the change as it happens, but may be less confusing to future generations.
It is not confusing whatsoever. People change names and aliases all the time for a variety of reasons but the world doesn't end and future generations aren't confused as to who someone is. Moreover, misgendering someone isn't just ignoring their identity, it is a slap in the face and challenges the validity of their existence.
I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought made the most sense, with explanation.
> However, it is rare to need to phrase something this way and usually such phrasings serve to portray being trans in a negative light.
How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what ways is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of social acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point in the future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the status quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past tense?
> It is not confusing whatsoever. People change names and aliases all the time for a variety of reasons but the world doesn't end and future generations aren't confused as to who someone is.
Well, obviously people are confused, because I just was when I first read the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the world that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move on to something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are confused, how often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more or less confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?
> Moreover, misgendering someone isn't just ignoring their identity, it is a slap in the face and challenges the validity of their existence.
The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past tense as they were in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able to change their past state.
It's not a blame thing or a "tut tut shame on you". The fact is it is a misgendering and that is harmful to people even if unintended. You don't need to apologize to me, but I think you should do the right thing and edit your original post and change the pronouns.
> How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what ways is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of social acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point in the future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the status quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past tense?
This has to do with how trans people are reported on and represented in media. Often media will explicitly draw attention to someone being trans while at the same time misgendering or attempting to paint the person as being abnormal or unbalanced. More subtly, often times media and comments will always draw attention to a person's gender before transitioning and it makes it difficult for someone to live as their current, actual identity and gender.
> Well, obviously people are confused, because I just was when I first read the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the world that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move on to something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are confused, how often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more or less confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?
I'm just pointing out that people change names and aliases all the time and we manage to do just fine. There isn't a problem with continuing to use the name Chelsea Manning and the proper gender pronouns.
> The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past tense as they were in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able to change their past state.
It's not about the past state. It's that their present state is always reduced back to that previous state. A trans person doesn't take to take their gender for granted and being misgendered is common. That misgender often goes beyond and uncomfortable social situation, that misgendering can challenge your medical access, identification documents, your sexual orientation, and lead to direct violence against your person.
The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about "historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.
I can't help but feel you keep misconstruing my argument to be that people should not be able to change their name or gender, or that we should ignore their name and gender preference, which I've very explicitly made clear is not my case. I do, and will continue to "just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use" for the present and future tense. It's only the past tense I have questions about, and am seeking a valid argument for.
I'm unclear why there is a special case where people who decide to change their name (or gender, but that's irrelevant to my argument) have special rules about how their past is represented that nothing else follows, as far as I'm aware.
It's a fucking name. If a person can't live with the fact that they used to be called something else, they need serious help with their self-image. It's not on other people to let you pretend you were never in jail, it's not on them to let you pretend you weren't raised in Cornwall, and it's not on them to let you pretend you were always married to the same person. It's on them not to bring it up when it's not pertinent, which it sometimes is, particularly in medical, judicial, sexual and demographic contexts.
I haven't downvoted you but let me explain why others have. You're making politically controversial statements and essentially accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.
This place is full of engineers. There are only two ways you can say there is no true gender. The first is to take the anti-science position that males and females have the same chromosomes with all that entails and the second is to redefine "gender" to mean something outside of what most people understand it to mean.
It's completely understandable that members of a community where making subtle distinctions are important would want to redefine relevant words to make their meaning more clear to one another. But becoming indignant when other people won't adopt your Newspeak is just contributing to the political inflammation of the situation.
I am not accusing anyone of being a bigot. However, it would be silly to assume that there are not cultural and social biases about gender that you and I grow up with and have, even if we don't realize it. That is what I am getting at: this isn't some accusation, but that statement definitely has a connotation about what it means to be a particular gender.
> This place is full of engineers. There are only two ways you can say there is no true gender. The first is to take the anti-science position that males and females have the same chromosomes with all that entails and the second is to redefine "gender" to mean something outside of what most people understand it to mean.
Gender is not your genes and there is a difference between sex and gender. The view that sex and gender have difference is not an unusual understanding of what gender means. Moreover, there is a lot of assumptions and stereotypes in culture and society about gender. Even if those assumptions are common, that does not mean they are valid or that they are not harmful.
> It's completely understandable that members of a community where making subtle distinctions are important would want to redefine relevant words to make their meaning more clear to one another.
You are implying that trans people being able to define their identity and having their identity accepted is a niche thing that isn't relevant to society as a whole when it most certainly is. Being able to have an identity and exist without facing violence and hardship is important no matter how numerically small a population is.
> But becoming indignant when other people won't adopt your Newspeak is just contributing to the political inflammation of the situation.
I think you missed the point of what Newspeak is. Correcting false assumptions and stereotypes about gender is not about limiting discussion or dialog. Further, there is no way that trans communities are even close to being in a position of political power and influence, being able to have their identity without that identity being challenged just because they exist isn't an attempt to suppress people.
The words you're using could be applied to anything. We're culturally biased to believe that murder, rape and slavery are wrong, that free speech and self-determination are virtuous, etc. So your point has to be that the bias is not only present but incorrect. The problem is that's the political question which is in dispute. People aren't inherently wrong just because they disagree with you.
> Gender is not your genes and there is a difference between sex and gender.
This is what I'm talking about. "Gender" and "genes" have the same root. Several of the definitions of "gender" in the dictionary list it as a synonym for sex. You're trying to claim that sex and gender mean (materially) different things because that allows you to more easily distinguish one from the other. So you're essentially using gender as a term of art. Which is fine until you start trying to tell everyone else that your meaning is the only meaning.
> You are implying that trans people being able to define their identity and having their identity accepted is a niche thing that isn't relevant to society as a whole when it most certainly is. Being able to have an identity and exist without facing violence and hardship is important no matter how numerically small a population is.
The problem is the cultural bias goes both ways. Most of society will assume that someone referred to with the feminine pronoun is genetically female. When that assumption is false the use of that pronoun becomes inherently misleading. So you're implicitly claiming that someone should have the right to mislead others about their sex in order to self-identify as the opposite gender. Can you at least understand how not everyone would agree with that conclusion?
And there is a mile wide gap between disagreeing over which words to use to describe someone and committing violence against them.
> I think you missed the point of what Newspeak is. Correcting false assumptions and stereotypes about gender is not about limiting discussion or dialog. Further, there is no way that trans communities are even close to being in a position of political power and influence, being able to have their identity without that identity being challenged just because they exist isn't an attempt to suppress people.
A majority or position of power is not necessary to enforce conformity to an ideal. All it requires is dedication and repetition. More to the point, if you don't think it can be effective then why are you doing it?
(Wau Holland co-founded the CCC)
edit: made it clear that by "collaborate with", I mean the CC and not Wikileaks.
Anyway here is the wikipedia page for the CCC with whom I happen to have absolutely zero association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club Give it a cursory glance and decide for yourself if this group is focused on being "anti-american"