> Um, OK and rewriting history is a tactic favoured by fascists.
We're not rewriting history. Allowing a transgendered person to choose a new name doesn't change the basic facts about what happened. It's just an act of compassion towards someone who would otherwise be suffering from feelings neither you nor I personally experience, but are well documented by scientists.
> Shouldn't it be "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea)"?
You could say "Chelsea Manning (at the time, 'Bradley')" if you really wanted to refresh people's memories, so long as you consistently refer to her as Chelsea through the rest of the comment/essay/etc.
You can't always raise objective facts and remain polite. I disagree.
Someone changing their name and identifying as the opposite sex after being arrested (the next day I think?) in a major political scandal makes that pertinent to the history of the situation. Hiding that by pretending the person always was identified as they currently are hides facts about the situation -- are they pertinent, maybe not to the primary issue, but the contemporaneous nature suggests something of interest (in social history if nothing else).
You get to do that. Others get to do what they are doing too.
It's not about that. I'm not gonna tell you what to do, but I will absolutely tell you something about what it means.
Maybe you don't know.
Frankly, your preferences are toxic. The toxicity is rooted in lack of consideration for others.
Nobody is objective. Even you.
And that lack of consideration actually undermines your stated goal of objectivity. It's not really viable to attempt objectivity without actually considering others and the social dynamics in play.
Those carry a lot of implications for everyone involved, even you.
Now, trans people simply are the gender they self identify as. Manning didn't switch.
What she did was actualize herself better, and that means being able to present as who she is better. Would you have others live lies so you, personally feel better about who they are?
I wouldn't, and for one reason: What if it were me stuck with a bad deal like she got?
What is that bad deal?
Rather than always parsing every move, interaction, expression for gender norm compliance, essentially living a lie, she now simply is and does as any of us do. Who wants to live an act, facade like that?
Nobody, and that is a basic human truth. Nobody. It's hell.
Your attempt to connect things back to an identity that is a more or less a lie, a forced construct, does nothing but reinforce the lies and severe inhibition she just escaped from.
Further, by doing that, you also inhibit acceptance and amplify severe and personal pain and for what?
I will leave that for you to answer, save to say it's self serving and this world isn't just about you.
Consideration due is consideration given. You aren't giving any, leaving yourself due very little, which should explain the frank and blunt nature of my comment, which I really should not have to write.
Maybe it helps. Hope so. The world will be just a bit better, and that is my intent here.
Give a little, and 'ye shall receive.
Oh, and no response required or expected. I don't care about that. No need. Just think, and then consider acting on the product of those thoughts.
> unless you adopt my preferred method of reasoning on this tangential, hot-button topic that I haven't even given you a chance to properly discuss, you're an abusive person.
You're literally putting words in my mouth there.
I said that was a tactic favored among abusive people. That's not an accusation, that's an observable fact about how abusive people behave.
You know who else does that? Abusive people. I'm not saying you're an abusive person, but that is definitely behavior shared by abusive people. It's just an observable fact. I chose these words very carefully so you know I am not accusing you of being abusive, just associating you with abusive behavior.
It can be applied to any behavior. I was using it to illustrate that your previous statement was associating a person with something extremely negative and you defended it by saying something to the effect of 'I never said he was x'
Indeed. I can't go and punch people in the face because I'm sad about somebody passing, either. You do not get to abuse others just because you're grieving.
And no, it's not a "hot button issue", it's about basic respect. And you know it, too, or you wouldn't have created a throwaway account.
The polite thing to do, regardless of personal politics, is to simply reassociate the person with the name Chelsea Manning and move on with your life.