> And transgender rights activists are more busy with right gender pronouns then with him/her.
I can understand not putting Chelsea on the front lines of the transgender rights battle. You need "clean" media stories to make a point. Chelsea's transgender story is easily sidetracked by the whistle blowing story.
> So, like not wanting a gay black rights
> activist among black activism ranks in the fifties?
This would be more like making a point of making black felons the poster children for black rights in the fifties. It's a pointless distraction to advancing the cause.
> I'd say the combined whistle blowing story
> make for an even better cause.
What makes you think people who agree with the transgender cause all agree that Chelsea Manning doesn't deserve to rot in prison?
There's plenty of socially progressive people who think someone who's active military leaking the sort of thing Manning leaked should be in prison at best.
>What makes you think people who agree with the transgender cause all agree that Chelsea Manning doesn't deserve to rot in prison?
No, what I think something else:
(1) That what he/she did was right.
(2) That being for what's right should not be compartmentalized: I wouldn't like black activists don't promoting gay causes, or gays not promoting black rights either.
(3) And that the people who I'd like to be on my side, should agree to both.
>There's plenty of socially progressive people who think someone who's active military leaking the sort of thing Manning leaked should be in prison at best.
If they think that I don't see how they are "socially progressive" at the same time. They sound like "the law is the law" and "my country, right or wrong" types...
I think it's more complicated than that. I think her sentence, like most in the US, is overly punitive and unlikely to do anything other than ruin her life without any greater benefit to society, but I also hesitate to say what she did was clearly right or that she shouldn't face any consequences for it.
I haven't read any of the documents that she leaked, but there is a certain danger in ignoring vigilantism even in cases where it is the right thing to do, because certainly we don't have the context to know whether that information could have been dangerous to be released, and perhaps she didn't either. It's one thing for journalists to report on leaked information, but another to give a free pass to someone who violates the terms of their access to classified information.
> I haven't read any of the documents that she leaked, but there is a certain danger in ignoring vigilantism even in cases where it is the right thing to do
But surely there is a pattern here that carries an even greater danger?
Pattern: an institution (in this case the US military, but it can be any government department, corporation, basically anything that is much more powerful than an individual) does something wrong and keeps it a secret. Whistleblower divulges the secret. Institution calls this treachery, tries to destroy whistleblower's life, and being much more powerful, will probably succeed unless society defends whistleblower.
Who gets to decide whether the information really needed to be kept secret? If we say the divulging thereof was dangerous vigilantism for which there should be consequences, regardless of its content, then we grant the institution a licence to make that decision unilaterally. This amounts to a free pass for institutional corruption – which, let us remember, is something that can ruin the world.
Mind you, I'm not saying whistleblower should get to make that decision unilaterally either. I'm saying I can think of no better option than deciding the case on its merits: look at the content of the divulged information and decide whether it was legitimately divulged (e.g. evidence of the institution committing a crime) or illegitimately (e.g. selling secrets to the enemy).
Actually - the need for 'clean' stories is just a further reproduction of the oppression, packaged for the consumption of people who think they are mainstream.
Using the word clean was wrong but I can't edit the comment. What I mean is there need to be stories that show how trans people fit into society like everyone else. They could be our brothers, sisters, parents, friends, coworkers. Just like anyone else. However, someone with a story like Chelsea can easily derail the conversation into a story that doesn't promote trans equality.
I can understand not putting Chelsea on the front lines of the transgender rights battle. You need "clean" media stories to make a point. Chelsea's transgender story is easily sidetracked by the whistle blowing story.