Suggestion Made That WikiLeaker Bradley Manning is Trans

[Carolyn Marie]

This is very interesting, and potentially very harmful to the public's image of transfolk. Private Manning is on trial and accused of one of the biggest intelligence leaks in U.S. history.

I caution that this is very preliminary, and we don't know where his attorneys are going with this. I'll be following this one closely.

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Carolyn Marie

[Drea]

Why would it be negative?

[Guest Juniper Blue]

Wow ... this could be a problem for the trans community if people associate being trans with having an "Alter -Ego" ... (as might be experienced by someone with Dissociative Identity Disorder.) The average, uneducated person could easily misunderstand and believe that all Trans people are dissociative.

A person can be both, but we know that these are two different things and that many, if not most people who are trans are not dissociative on any level ... ( Still, the average person may not know this.)

There is already so much confusion and misinformation out there about what it means to be a person who is trans gender ... It woudl be a major set back if the association is made that all trans gender people have a dissociative disorder. Myths liek this are hard to undo. Remember the 70'swhen people were smoking CATNIP because of a typo in some article on cannabis??

Anyway ... It is not good if Manning is using dissociative disorder or an "alter-ego" as a reason to avoid responsibility for his criminal behavior.

There is a lot of dramatization with DID and again, misinformation and related ignorance/fear of people with dissociative disorders. Many people with DID, if not most, live productive and fully law abiding lives (and negative stereotypes make their lives much more painful. )

I don't think this association of Manning as either Trans, DID or both is good for anyone.

- J

[Guest Juniper Blue]

One more point that is troubling about this .. whether Manning is viewed as a hero for being a whistle blower or as a criminal for breaching security .... is that his gender would most likely not be an issue if we was a stereotypically cis male.

It is a lot like pointing out that a person is black or Latino when it is irrelevant to the crime.

It is hard to say where things are going with this ... maybe I am just jumping to conclusions .. I hope so.

[Cyndee]

Why would it be negative?

Lawyers grabbing at straws.

[Guest Mia J]

They may be pulling at straws but to try and use being trans or having GID as a defense for criminal acts can hurt us all. This would put GID as being a mental disease that could cause a person to commit criminal acts that a person without GID would not.

Mia

[Carolyn Marie]

Why would it be negative?

Just one potential problem among many: a lot of transfolk are in industries that require security clearances. If its proven that Manning is trans, it could potentially be used as an excuse to not hire transfolk for such jobs, or scrutinize those who hold them, because of a perception that transfolk are security risks. Yes, I have no proof that such would be the case, but it is a reasonable possibility.

Second: it feeds a stereotype that transfolk are mentally unbalanced and "odd." The exception proves the rule, and all that rubbish.

If this were any "ordinary" crime it wouldn't be a big deal, but this case is notorious already. It's publicity we don't need.

Carolyn Marie

[JJ]

I agree this has a lot of potential to be bad for those with DID as well as for the trans community.

So far I haven't seen any publicity about it in other media but we can be fairly certain there will be

Johnny

[Guest Donna Jean]

Why would it be negative?

Just one potential problem among many: a lot of transfolk are in industries that require security clearances. If its proven that Manning is trans, it could potentially be used as an excuse to not hire transfolk for such jobs, or scrutinize those who hold them, because of a perception that transfolk are security risks. Yes, I have no proof that such would be the case, but it is a reasonable possibility.

Second: it feeds a stereotype that transfolk are mentally unbalanced and "odd." The exception proves the rule, and all that rubbish.

If this were any "ordinary" crime it wouldn't be a big deal, but this case is notorious already. It's publicity we don't need.

Carolyn Marie

I agree, Carolyn......

Dee Jay

[Drea]

There are large number of trans who have security clearances. This is not something new for those who issue such clearances. I don't see anything here that is going to affect those who do or who are going to be obtaining such in the future.

I am not one to jump at shadows nor engage in fear mongering. I am not going to project some potential negative reaction directed at myself because someone did something bad and might just happen to be trans. It would be far from the first instance that has happened.

Now if the community activists start to support this person and start to say the persecution is because the person is trans, well maybe it could have a negative effect, but in this instance I just don't see the community doing that.

If it turns into something more, and responses are more than empty wind then I will worry about it.

[Guest Donna Jean]

.

It's always smart to worry about things in advance.....

That way....you have damage control in place in case things go bad....

There are plenty of people here that worry about how things in the news might affect the community (you and I)....

Lauras is here to discuss issues that affect us all....

If you don't want to worry about it...then don't......

Others have concerns, though...and I don't see them "..... jumping at shadows nor engaging in fear mongering"......They're just being cautious.....

I don't see anything here that is going to affect those who do or who are going to be obtaining such in the future.

I think you're totally wrong in this ....

If this person IS Trans...it could change the mindset to some degree that Trans people are reliable...and make it harder on those that follow....

I once had a "Top Secret" clearance and I would of never done anything to jeopardize it or the people that trusted me with it (the U.S.)

Donna Jean

[JJ]

I agree with Dee Jay

Plus Drea please if you are going to make a statement that a large number of trans people have security clearances-do you mean known to be trans and still have security clearances? I find that very significant and I would like to know the source.

When you throw a statement like that out there you need to provide some grounds for it whether it is your own background or expertise or research you have done. Who grants security clearances to trans -especially routinely? Right now GID is still legally a mental diagnosis and as such could preclude transgendered from security clearance.. Also if you read the CIA diversity policy and recruitment LGB is included-transgender is not.

I frequently see here where people say "most" or "many" or something similar followed by a statement of supposed fact without any support. If it an opinion that is a different thing than a statement of verified fact.

Since even gays are sometimes still considered security risks according to what I have read and certainly that was the norm even a few years ago I would be absolutely astounded to find that open transsexuals are routinely given security clearances especially since studies have shown that we are discriminated against in even finding government jobs to begin with according to the National canter for Transgender Equality. One of the changes they are calling for is a directive to the FBI and other agencies to grant transgendered people security clearances and to hold our information private. Why would they deem an action necessary if it is a widespread practice to grant such clearances already?.

If the clearances are given to trans people while closeted it hardly counts as security clearances granted to transsexuals does it?

Johnny

[Guest Donna Jean]

.

There are large number of trans who have security clearances. This is not something new for those who issue such clearances.

What is your source for this info?

Donna Jean

Edited December 19, 2011 by Donna Jean
Oops.....JJ beat me to it.....

[Guest Donna Jean]

Since even gays are sometimes still considered security risks according to what I have read and certainly that was the norm even a few years ago

Johnny

Gays were considered security risks in the "old days" because of the potential for blackmail by outing....

Donna Jean

[Guest Mia J]

I agree Donna Jean,

This could not only effect those with security clearances but open up reasons for discrimination against us as we have a condition that makes us untrustworthy.

Mia

[Guest KimberlyF]

Since 2008, it's illegal to deny security clearance to someone who's transitioned.

If you lie about stuff on your applications or hold back info, you can be fired anywhere.

[Drea]

I see very few out there footnoting their posts with exact sources of assertions. Thus I feel no need to impose any more stringent standard for myself than others do on themselves. At least in my instance I been around long enough to have very good basis for what I have observed.

As for my source that there are trans people with security clearances? Well I know people in the field. I know trans who have gotten clearances. For every one I know of there must be hundreds I don't know personally.

Of course these peope got clearances with the people issuing the clearances knowing they were trans. Lying about such, omitting information post transition is one way of insuring not getting a clearance.

Seems to me that first, there is no telling if anything will be made of it. We are talking a potential in a situation. And even if the alter ego thing turns out to be a big issue, there is then only a potential it could reflect on the greater trans community. Lastly there is nothing any of us can do to prevent the initial mentions from turning into anything significant in the case and then there is nothing that any can do to prevent it from being connected to trans at large.

Worrying about what we can not change is an excercise in futility. To worry about the potential that there could be a potential for something to be made of it whereat the moment we can't change seems even more futile and a waste of energy.

I will grant you that the community could try to distance itself from this person. Would that achieve what is intended or will it likely draw more attention to a potential link? It seems to me that acting at this stage will only draw more attention.

If people want to go and seek protections do so, but it won't affect this case, it won't change what happens. So I just can't see worrying, but if one wants to, I won't stop them.

[Cyndee]

Worrying about what we can not change is an excercise in futility. To worry about the potential that there could be a potential for something to be made of it whereat the moment we can't change seems even more futile and a waste of energy.

I agree, there is enough in life to really worry about. Worry about what some lawyers might fish up about this person which is accused of terrible acts toward our country (the real issue) and what it means to us just seems disconnected and futile. I suppose if a mind were to become idle, it might start looking for things to worry about. Just a general musing not directed at anyone here.

C -

[JJ]

On a positive note -when NBC news covered the story this morning about the seizure of computer records and what was found etc there was no mention at all of either DID or gender issues. Maybe they will actually focus on what is the heart of the issue unless the defense team forces the focus elsewhere and tries it in the media.

One can be aware of a problem and discuss it -even see it or identify it as a problem-without worrying in an active negative sense. I am involved in and interested in my world and I like to discuss what I see and hear. Especially if it has the potential to affect me.

Worry is more what happens when a transwoman is walking home at night because she enjoys the stars and is picked up and drug behind a truck and then mercifully executed in what is in this state a nearby community. And the case is in the hands of a sheriff who uses the wrong terms and intentionally misgenders her. Then it sinks out of sight after 1 day because no one wants to see it solved. Then I worry. Then I fear and will also be a fearmongerer if anyone wants to call me that.

The WikiLeaks case is just interest and discussion of world events as they possibly relate to me. The nice thing is that anyone who doesn't want to waste time on it doesn't have to do so

Johnny

[Cyndee]

Journalism doesn't sensationalize, nahhhh.

[JJ]

Funny though that they pick and choose what to sensationalize. The case of the transwoman here was not widely reported or sensationalized. It was in fact downplayed where a similar case in which, though the person was also African American as was this woman, gender played no part was nationally sensationalized and still mentioned on occasion though it happened years ago. When the motive was race there was widespread coverage. Where it was gender then it was allowed to quietly sink out of sight. The brutality was even greater from what I have read in the case here. Could have made for some really sensational reporting had anyone chosen to do so.

Sure journalism sensationalized-though there is some argument whether that is real journalism or entertainment masquerading as journalism-and is always biased because every single word chosen is rooted in bias no matter how committed someone is to fairness and few really are. But there is selectivity in what is sensationalized. Maybe gender expression is becoming more PC and less of a target? Or they don't want to get dragged into the whole controversy with the fundamentalists. Probably wistful thinking. Time will tell.

Johnny

[Guest Donna Jean]

As for my source that there are trans people with security clearances? Well I know people in the field. I know trans who have gotten clearances. For every one I know of there must be hundreds I don't know personally.

Of course these peope got clearances with the people issuing the clearances knowing they were trans. Lying about such, omitting information post transition is one way of insuring not getting a clearance.

First off....this whole thing is not about trans people in general.....It's about someone in the military with access to state secrets and has admittedly leaked them....

This involves us all...not just as Trans folk, but as Americans!

People giving away government secrets DOES concern me!

Worrying about what we can not change is an excercise in futility. To worry about the potential that there could be a potential for something to be made of it whereat the moment we can't change seems even more futile and a waste of energy.

Well, obviously the people that hand out the security clearances worry about " potential that there could be a potential"...that's how it works...

He has said that he told his superiors that he was gay and had trans tendencies....that is where the Army dropped the ball...

Gays can serve openly in the military ...Trans cannot!

But, to state that worrying about things is futile? That is human nature.....If people don't worry about things, things don't happen......

Discussions are actually worries and concerns.....But worrying about what we cannot change? Who says they can't be changed?

I will grant you that the community could try to distance itself from this person. Would that achieve what is intended or will it likely draw more attention to a potential link? It seems to me that acting at this stage will only draw more attention.

If people want to go and seek protections do so, but it won't affect this case, it won't change what happens. So I just can't see worrying, but if one wants to, I won't stop them.

At least people are thinking about it and how to deal with it and not just burying their heads in the sand.....

Donna Jean