Bradley Manning wants to become a female

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...211609706.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wall Street Journal

Bradley Manning Seeks Gender Change
Bradley Manning: 'I Am Chelsea Manning. I Am a Female'

WASHINGTON—Pfc. Bradley Manning said Thursday that he wants to live his life as a woman and be known as Chelsea Manning as he begins a 35-year prison term for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.

Less than 24 hours after being sentenced for being the source of one of the biggest classified leaks in U.S. history, Pfc. Manning said that he wants to begin hormone therapy and be known by a new name.

"As I transition to the next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me," he said in a statement made on NBC's "Today Show" by his attorney, David Coombs. "I am Chelsea Manning."

In a statement, Army spokesman George Wright said "The Army does not provide hormone therapy or sex-reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder."

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0821103751.jpg
Bradley Manning is escorted to a security vehicle in Fort Meade, Md., on Tuesday.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/i...0822090725.jpg
In this undated file photo provided by the U.S. Army, Bradley Manning poses for a photo wearing a wig and lipstick. Mr. Manning emailed his military therapist the photo with a letter in which he described his issues with gender identity.

Pfc. Manning's sexuality became a focal point of his defense during the court-martial at Fort Meade, Md.

His defense team argued that the 25-year-old former Army intelligence analyst suffered from gender-identity issues that were largely ignored by commanders who should have removed him from the position in Iraq, where he had access to classified U.S. documents.

Weeks before his arrest, Pfc. Manning sent a photograph to an Army officer showing the young Army soldier dressed in makeup and a wig. In the email, titled "My Problem," Pfc. Manning confessed to his struggle with sexuality.

On Thursday, Pfc. Manning made it clear that he wants to live the rest of his life as a woman.

"I am female," he said in the statement. "Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible."

On Wednesday, a military judge sentenced Pfc. Manning to 35 years in prison for leaking 700,000 military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. He will be dishonorably discharged and lose all military pay and benefits. Mr. Manning could be eligible for parole in about eight years.

His legal team is asking President Barack Obama to pardon Pfc. Manning, who apologized for leaking the documents, but said that he was trying to bring attention to what he viewed as morally questionable U.S. foreign policy actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe.

---

This is... A surprizing turn of events. Although I wonder why he's coming out with this now, I hope this is not some kind of an attempt to denigrate him in front of his possible, more conservative supporters.

I know it's horrible, but my mum said he would be very popular in prison if he identifies as a female.

I'm confused about this quote though:

Quote:

---

His defense team argued that the 25-year-old former Army intelligence analyst suffered from gender-identity issues that were largely ignored by commanders who should have removed him from the position in Iraq, where he had access to classified U.S. documents.

---

Why would gender-identity issues have anything to do with his performance in the army? and why should he have been removed? are they saying he should have been removed from his position because of it? or am I reading this wrong? (likely). If it is saying what I think it's saying, why is his DEFENSE saying it?

I was unsure of whether to call him "him" or "her" in this case, but I suppose he is still legally a man.

The military needs, especially for that position, a sound mind. People with anxiety issues or identity crisis' can have an affected judgement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razmos

I know it's horrible, but my mum said he would be very popular in prison if he identifies as a female.

I'm confused about this quote though:

Why would gender-identity issues have anything to do with his performance in the army? and why should he have been removed? are they saying he should have been removed from his position because of it? or am I reading this wrong? (likely). If it is saying what I think it's saying, why is his DEFENSE saying it?

I was unsure of whether to call him "him" or "her" in this case, but I suppose he is still legally a man.

---

I think you got it right because that's not the only time he's used that argument, at least according to the article.

Quote:

---

Weeks before his arrest, Pfc. Manning sent a photograph to an Army officer showing the young Army soldier dressed in makeup and a wig. In the email, titled "My Problem," Pfc. Manning confessed to his struggle with sexuality.

---

But who knows the details of his situation to tell whether or not his struggle is really troubling or just a lame excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razmos

I know it's horrible, but my mum said he would be very popular in prison if he identifies as a female.

I'm confused about this quote though:

Why would gender-identity issues have anything to do with his performance in the army? and why should he have been removed? are they saying he should have been removed from his position because of it? or am I reading this wrong? (likely). If it is saying what I think it's saying, why is his DEFENSE saying it?

I was unsure of whether to call him "him" or "her" in this case, but I suppose he is still legally a man.

---

Call her a her. She believes that she is a woman, respect her identity.

As for why she should have been recalled, I'd imagine there could be a reasonable amount of judgment issues stemming from unsolved gender issues? Maybe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razmos

I'm confused about this quote though:

Why would gender-identity issues have anything to do with his performance in the army? and why should he have been removed? are they saying he should have been removed from his position because of it? or am I reading this wrong? (likely). If it is saying what I think it's saying, why is his DEFENSE saying it?

---

People undergoing any kind of personal issues are generally considered a poor security risk. Whether it's gender identity, religion, or family trouble, doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KhainiWest

The military needs, especially for that position, a sound mind. People with anxiety issues or identity crisis' can have an affected judgement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabanaw

Call her a her. She believes that she is a woman, respect her identity.

As for why she should have been recalled, I'd imagine there could be a reasonable amount of judgment issues stemming from unsolved gender issues? Maybe?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaptaZapta

People undergoing any kind of personal issues are generally considered a poor security risk. Whether it's gender identity, religion, or family trouble, doesn't matter.

---

I see, that does make sense.

In that case it's a pretty poor defense, saying that they should have taken action before she blew the whistle.

That's how law generally works here, if you're guilty with no means of a loophole, you have to push the responsibility of the crime onto something or someone else. Their argument is essentially that if they were aware of his "crisis" and allowed him to keep said position, then that's the risk they took. So now it's his superiors fault for ignoring the red flags and not taking the necessary action

It can be a girl or a guy, but it doesn't change the fact that a massive security breach happened; a plea of insanity shouldn't get someone off the hook, and neither should this. It should have been the life sentence regardless of any issues "she" may have had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KhainiWest

That's how law generally works here, if you're guilty with no means of a loophole, you have to push the responsibility of the crime onto something or someone else. Their argument is essentially that if they were aware of his "crisis" and allowed him to keep said position, then that's the risk they took. So now it's his superiors fault for ignoring the red flags and not taking the necessary action

---

Well, it's like being secretly gay in a culture that prosecutes homosexuals. If society doesn't support & approve of your identity, it's a security risk because it makes you more vulnerable. IMO the right answer is "treat all humans equally," rather than not letting a given group join the army, but with the ridiculously insensitive treatment the army gives and has given to transgender individuals it's a pretty solid argument that it affected her mental state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stereo

with the ridiculously insensitive treatment the army gives and has given to transgender individuals it's a pretty solid argument that it affected her mental state.

---

I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't normally cause someone to potentially place millions of people in danger. Nothing in there was read before it was leaked; what would have happened if something EXTREMELY important was in there? Nuclear launch codes wouldn't ever be stored in something like that, but base schematics, drill schedules, complaint reports that happen to include mention of faulty facilities on bases, any number of documents that could have been used against us could have been in there. It wasn't directly aiding the enemy, I'm sure he/she wasn't even thinking that far ahead, but it was still incredibly stupid, and stupidity shouldn't be rewarded with reduced sentencing.