Talk:Chelsea Manning

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I opted to put Chelsea in the "Transgender" category (which says not to put somebody in it just because they're trans) specifically because her gender announcement was politically controversial. But if there's disagreement on that I don't mind someone removing the category. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Did someone actually question Manning's transgender identification, given the circumstances surrounding the leaks? It would be good to have some examples to laugh at. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is one such critic. It's not quite black-and-white though. The author of that piece is transgender herself, and was critical mostly of Chelsea's use of her trans status during the trial as some sort of attempt to get a lesser sentence. Which is actually pretty messed up, I didn't know she had even done that. (I had thought she only came out afterward.) So I don't really know what to think at this point. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 08:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Coming back after the fact, I found a guy from Fox saying essentially what I had said before, so I added it. Media Matters also mentions that it was already known that Chelsea was transgender before the trial, and the only thing she saved for afterward was the official request to be known by the name Chelsea. So yeah, I call bullshit on the very thing I linked to (the Business Insider one above). Anyway. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 10:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The category seems fine, but why the sidebar? Manning is primarily known for the intelligence leaks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

corrected uniformed picture caption with correct rank (If manning was reduced in rank, please revert.)72.50.82.151 (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone planning on editing this to reflect her current situation? 108.70.12.24 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully. — Dysk (contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)