Those who do not view her actions favourably use the wrong name and pronouns.
That suggests that there's overlap between those who do not view her favourably and people who do not view transgender people favourably.
In my personal situation, I feel that while some of the leaks were very justified, a lot of the material had no reason to be released [1]. Anyways, I don't pay much attention to the case, and wasn't aware that Manning was no longer a "he". If I had just skimmed the page before commenting I might have made the same mistake. I'm sure some people are doing it on purpose, but it's important to remember that for the highest-profile parts of the case Manning was still a "he".
[1] I'm not sure what camp that puts me in - I'm not opposed to the leak of a certain subset of the leaked material, but I do feel that by not redacting anything what Manning did was irresponsible.
Side note: is there no way to escape asterisks on HN?
For the record, I lean towards thinking she should be found guilty, but I haven't put enough thought into it to feel strongly.
Of course, if your respect for someone's trans status is revocable, then you probably weren't that strongly in favor of trans rights to begin with.
I don't see a moral obligation to use the pronouns people assign to themselves.
And I've noticed that some of Edward Snowden's more vocal supporters also support Putin's actions across the board, including his hateful anti-LGBT stance.
I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense.
It sounds like you are insinuating that he was some kind of Russian agent or defector, and his supporters are have a pro-Russian agenda.