Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) on Channel 4 news last night

[ScrollingLeaves]

Perhaps there is another thread about this.
Bradley Manning leaked video footage of U S Military outrageous shooting of non combatants in Iraq. He, as he was then, was sentenced to a long term in prison. On that day he became trans gender, Chelsea Manning. Chelsea’s sentence was commuted to 7 years by Obama. Chelsea has just written a book, hence the interview.
aired on Channel 4 last night.

She was asked whether she could find any points of agreement with JKR. Vehemently, and without hesitating she said “Nah”in a very curt way as though it were a full stop regarding a fiend.

I had admired Bradley/Chelsea Manning for exposing that video in Iraq. I cannot understand though the clipped certainty of Chelsea’s response about someone as reasonable as JKR. The context [BM’s exposure of military wrong doing] paints JKR as also something like a war criminal - another one the hero Chelsea stands up to. The interview ended with that “Nah.”.

I have absolutely no idea why the interviewer brought up JKR in the first place

And Chelsea did not answer the question re women's safety (can't remember how it was worded) at all. Just started blethering on about transpeople existing...well of course they bloody do

I think Manning is correct in saying there is no common ground. There isn’t a compromise position between ‘some men are women’ and ‘no men are women’.

How long does Bradley have to stay as Chelsea to maintain the sentence advantages of discovering her trans identity? Of course this may not apply to Chelsea, but authorities are providing some very compelling reasons to consider transition…

I watched it last night. I don't know why JKR needs to be brought into every conversation about women and children's rights either. I do admire people who stand up for truth telling. However, Manning in common with all the current males speaking against women standing up for truth seem not to consider for one moment that there is an objective state of being female and that those who are can stand up for that. Not an inkling. So yes probably right there is no common ground, well fair enough. Women are women.

Do I care for someone who says they are a woman and yet cannot see a way to find common ground with a woman passionate about the rights of women?

Nah.

I've never had any respect for Manning, because the original leak wasn't over the morality of what he saw, it was revenge over his treatment, I think he showed his commanding officer photos of himself cross-dressing and just expected the army to accommodate his behaviour. I can't remember the details, so may be wrong, but it always stuck with me that it was a personal vendetta, rather than the "greater good".

Edward Snowdon leaked information because he didn't like what he saw. I have respect for that.

The assumption was that Manning was an effeminate gay man, but I heard he was dating Elon Musk's ex partner. So the trans is something else that A GP could diagnose.

Appalling foreign policy/war crimes should be exposed and talked about.

I DGAF about the whistleblower's personal life, frankly, nor opinions if they reveal themself to be contemptuous of women - it's not a great revelation. Sadly, misogyny is so very common its unremarkable.

Manning punched a female colleague and was prone to outbursts.

I used to think they were a hero too, now I just think they are a petulant arsehole.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075943/amp/Bradley-Manning-trial-Wikileaks-suspect-punched-female-superior.html

JKR: "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection"

Shame transphobic Chelsea can't agree with this.

'punched a female superior' - just another violent woman-hater, then.

VioletLemon · Today 13:37
Why are you referring to Bradley/Chelsea as "she"

I thought it was necessary to refer to a known transwoman as she according to Mumsnet rules. Would it not be considered deliberately offensive to do otherwise? I thought my post would be deleted if I didn’t.

I came across this as I was scrolling past. Asked about whether there could be common ground between JKR and him, he answered with a sharp 'No', as the mouth snapped shut like a trap. I couldn't think of him as other than a man, his demeanour being the reason.

No sign of wanting to be accommodating or considerate of others. You could almost think 'Ah but that's a woman's trait isn't it?' A generalisation I know but all the same, JKR worries about trans people, as do many women on here but rarely is there any comparable worrying about women or girls coming from the other 'side'.

Thank you all for your replies.
Abitofalark · Yesterday 23:33
he answered with a sharp 'No', as the mouth snapped shut like a trap. I couldn't think of him as other than a man, his demeanour being the reason.

Your description of the way the mouth snapped shut like a trap is perfect, Abitofalark.

I wish interviewers would stop inevitably bringing up JKR in interviews with trans women. As another poster up thread said it is not really clear why JKR is relevant to the book by Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

Instead of bringing up JKR, interviewers, if they want to bring up this issue, should simply ask transwomen whether they themselves think they should be allowed in all women’s spaces including refuges, prisons, changing rooms, sports, and all women short lists? Then they’d be forced not to answer with a lazy, mindless retorts about JKR the transphobe. The interviewers probably would be loath to do this though. They almost need JKR to take the fall - otherwise they themselves could be acciused of bein transphobes simply for asking.

ScreamingMeMe · Yesterday 14:16
I had not realised Manning punched a female colleague at work and was prone to outbursts. Thank you for the wikipaedia link. They sound like a disturbed and aggressive character.and their aggression came across in the interview.

LaughingPriest · Yesterday 14:24
JKR: "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection"

Shame transphobic Chelsea can't agree with this

Well, put,Laughing.

As some have pointed out here, ‘fair enough’, there is no common ground to be found between the view that TWAW, and the fact that no man can become a woman. But in practice, concern for the well-being of trans women has to be balanced by concern for, and protection of, women and children.

ArcaneWireless · Yesterday 13:36
Do I care for someone who says they are a woman and yet cannot see a way to find common ground with a woman passionate about the rights of women?

Nah

Yes, that’s what I felt. That mindless dismissal did not invite sympathy.