I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). Chelsea Manning has clearly stated that she is a woman and should be referred to as a woman.
> I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that confusion isn't addressed promptly and often).
If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at all, so you really aren't feeling torn. Bottom line, Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such. You say you are offended, but what you are really saying is that you feel that you know her gender better than she does. You don't. Your discomfort with trans folks is your own issue and to misgender someone is hugely disrespectful.
> I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present.
> That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people).
I don't believe this is true. If a community solves a problem of how the public at large should act, but the public does not accept or follow that solution, the problem is not solved. I was simply asking what type of adoption the solution I was presented had seen. If it's seeing widespread adoption, then this discussion has little meaning (beyond discussing technical merits of different approaches), because I don't think anything would change. I'm fine with that, besides thinking that history gets a bit more confusing.
> If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at
No, I'm trying to weigh my respect for the individual and their desires against societies desires and needs, as well as what we may perceive as best for society (even if it's not something they value at the time).
> Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such.
That's fine, I never stated she shouldn't be. I'm simply torn on what I think should be the best way to refer to her in the past tense, for the same reason I refer to my sic year old self as a boy, and not as a man. I'm a man now, I was a boy then. I am open to arguments to sway me though. I'm not pushing an agenda, just trying to discuss something that I encountered.
> Your discomfort with trans folks
This is the projection I was referring to. I thought I was pretty clear that I was uncomfortable with the historical record changing on someone's future decision. That this decision is common to transgender people is irrelevant to be points. If you want to argue that gender and name are important enough to warrant the changes, that's fine. If you can't make the argument without referring to transgender people, that may be a sign the argument needs refinement, or may have some baked in assumptions that don't hold. For example, I personally hold name and gender to be of equal importance. Maybe that's not the case for you, or any number of others. That may be a bad assumption on either of our parts.
> There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present.
And where was I saying we should misgender them in the present? I don't think it's misgendering someone to refer to them as "he" when referring to them at some point when they referred to themselves with that pronoun, and as "she" in the present when that's how they refer to themselves. But maybe my thoughts in that are tied to some assumptions that need to be shaken. Like I said, I'm open to discussion, but please keep the attacks to yourself, at least until you've given me the benefit of a doubt.
The question of gender earlier in one's life in most stories is not even relevant and there is really no need to discuss it at all. However, in Manning's case the question of gender does appear to be somewhat relevant, since her motive appears to have included concerns about how the Army treated (or failed to treat) her own gender disorder.
Except that gender neutral singular pronouns are not used much in English where they exist (there is a singular they, but it's uncommon it's used). But I think focusing on this is missing the point. Note my reference to Cassius Clay. I'm more interested in that an identifier changes. That the gender specific also changed is just an additional complication, but once the rules on the name are clear, the rules on the pronoun would be obvious, I think.
