User:DHeyward/sandbox/Archive Manning

BLP extends beyond the individual to groups

 * Background: Manning, prior to being notable and prior to being charged, expressed gender dysphoria to superiors. Manning noted a female persona was "Breanna."  At this time, Manning's work suffered and Manning wasn't fitting in.  Manning assaulted a superior female enlisted person and this resulted in demotion from Specialist to Pfc.  Manning sought escape and essentially developed an online relationship with Wikileaks persons.  Manning admitted later that it obviously meant more to Manning than the Wikileaks person she chatted on IRC with.  At the time, Manning was abiding by DADT regulations in uniform while also just ending a relationship with a man in the U.S.  Manning identified and lived as a gay man outside of the U.S. Army during this period.  Manning adopted the online IRC "Bradass87".  Manning expressed that "this CPU was not built for this motherboard."  At some point, Manning provided numerous documents to Wikileaks that were later the basis for charging him and led to United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning.
 * Manning, during his trial, sought to mitigate his illegal activities on the stress created by gender dysphoria. Manning garnered and built significant support from groups that identified with his whistleblowing, LGBT status and generally groups that opposed U.S. foreign policy.
 * Manning is one of a long line of transgender soldiers and civilians that have served the U.S. both openly and discreetly. To date, Manning appears to be the only one that sought mitigation due to her dysphoria.   Manning's actions were not universally accepted by LGBT groups as they objected to blaming gender dysphoria for what amounted to felonies.  They characterized her actions as a setback as she portrayed a stereotype that transpersons would not be suitable to trust with classified information.  It seems obvious that such actions would suppress others with security clearances and gender dysphoria from coming forward based on Manning's claims.  Furthermore, policy should also take into account that self-identity with a historically repressed community might actually do more harm to the community than is warranted by self-identity.  If, for example, Benedict Arnold was later found to be a transwoman in heretofore undiscovered documents, WP should take care before rewriting his biography highlighting every aspect of his life as transgender.  Arnold's notability doesn't stem from is gender identity and it would most likely be seen as a smear attempt to attach "transgender" to every aspect of his life, especially the infamous events.  In the myopic lens of the newscycle, we can lose sight of the broad implications that associating groups with a potentially notorious individual can do.  It can cause stereotypes to be magnified and highlighted when in fact, WP should be writing in a style that suppresses stereotypes as there are other living people that will be hurt by the association.  Think about infamous pedophiles and child murderers - which bio would you rewrite to highlight their self-identified transgender status or sexual orientation?  Do we care if someone like Jerry Sandusky or pedophile priests self-identify as gay men or transgender?  Would it be fair to those communities to suddenly identify and therefore associate them by rewriting every aspect of their life to include their sexual preference?  Considering that gay men have worked very hard to eradicate the association of pedophilia with homosexuality, it would be a large BLP problem to overemphasize sexual preference in those cases.  Likewise, Manning has described himself as unstable.  Transgender people have fought the "unstable" stigma.  We should not rush to associate a notorious figure's notorious acts with an identity that has the potential to smear others that are transgender yet manage not to violate the law and also have security clearances.  Manning's experience with gender dysphoria is his own experience and we should be very careful not to broadly paint Manning as a "typical transwoman" as we have no way to ascertain this and the group is already heavily sterotyped.  It is not transphobic to say Manning was unstable, it is transphobic to say transgender people are unstable.  Therefore, it is very important to not make Manning's biography a case study of being transgender.   In a Utopian world, people would not take an act and associate it with a group.  Yet we inherently know we don't live in Utopia when we make changes to articles so as not to appear to paint groups of people in a negative light.
 * Manning's notability isn't due to be being a transwoman. Notability stems from disclosing large amounts of secret material to persons unauthorized to receive it.  This action could have been done by any person in the unit.  The disclosure would have been notable regardless of the person that leaked it.  WP should not use Manning's biography to perpetuate a stereotype of a class of people through a perception of victimization that is not supported outside of Manning's own action.  This is plainly obvious.  We would not let the race of a murderer to define their biography if race were historically associated with the crime but not relevant to the crime in question.  It would be mentioned, but not propagated throughout the article as guilt by association.  There is no evidence that Manning was subject to any discrimination or violence as a transwoman in the Army.  Nothing was presented at trial that links his crime to gender identity except for the dysphoria she personally experienced.  In fact, Manning was seeking and getting counseling to deal with those feelings and was most likely headed for an administrative separation based on the diagnosis.  This is not different than the administrative separation that Manning faced in Boot Camp when a lingering injury made it difficult to continue and she spent six months recovering.  Had another person in her unit that wasn't transgender released the information, the notability would be just the same except no focus on being transgender.  Manning's decision to commit crimes should not be allowed to broadly paint transgender persons as predisposed of doing such an act more than any other person that is experiencing personal stress, or through his biography with a wholesale rewrite that makes gender dysphoria the essential characteristic that made him notable.  It ties "transgender=unstable" and it is a stereotype that WP should avoid.  Others will argue that it is offensive or transphobic to extend Mannings experience to the broad category of transgender people.  To the contrary, it is offensive to concentrate Mannings biography around her transgender identity when her notability has nothing to do with it.


 * Manning's (and other temporal changes to fundamental personality changes) can have negative effects on persons around them. For example, we have no idea if Manning's b/f knew she was a transwoman when Manning was living as a gay man.  It can be extremely hurtful, painful, stressful and embarrassing to learn that your S/O was not who they portrayed themselves to be (unasked/asked questions like "How could you not know your husband was a woman?" can hurt in gay and straight relationships).  So much so, that violence against transgender people is not uncommon when their transgender identity is revealed.  Transphobic or not, these are real feelings and reactions that people can have.    This is not limited to Manning changing from living as a gay man to living as a transwoman.  There are cases where transwomen were previously married as men and fathered children.  Revealing these details can have consequences to living people beyond the person that has come out as transgender.  Deference and understanding must be given to those that were affected by how the transgender person lived.  Changing a persons historical as well as current gender reference can hurt other people.  A person that marries a man and has children with them might find it quite offensive to learn that Wikipedia decided on its own to claim that person married a woman or the children that still refer to their father with paternal names are wrong, not only in the present but also in the past.  The use of names and pronouns can create an appearance of a relationships or marriage that didn't exist at the time.  Imagine children of a transwoman that came out after the children were grown.  WP today would rewrite these bio's in such a way that it would imply the children were raised by two women when their own experience is they had a male father and female mother.  It could very well be a BLP violation for everyone involved to imply there were no male role models for those children.  The simple fact that the father was living as a man could have provided that role and WP has no way to know this if we simply and blindly rewrite their entire life as the last known gender identity.  Such a policy can be hurtful and damaging if it is not grounded in the reality and experience of the people involved.


 * There are other members of the trans community that are not particularly pleased with Manning .  Namely they make a distinction between MIDs, transgender, transexual, and various differences.  They are offended by the association as they have already gone through transitions both with hormones and SRS and consider those that have not to be rather presumptuous about what it means to live as their gender.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability and the notable name is relevant to titles and content

 * Others will/have noted WP::COMMONNAME and articles like Cat Stevens. Yet there are many more.  Note the lede in Mary Kay Letourneau where it says she took the name of her current husband yet her current name is not mentioned.  While this is what she undoubtedly prefers to be called, she is infamous for the article name.  The article correctly reflects this.  Also note the Woman and Reproductive rights champion Margaret Sanger.  Sanger signed personal correspondence as "Slee" .  Her gravestone is marked "Margaret Sanger Slee."  Yet, WP barely even acknowledges a person named "Slee" in her biography let alone her name.  In Sanger's case, Slee is mentioned just as the name of her last husband.  This is exactly correct for Article title for both of these notable figures because anything different would require vast explanations.  Many people will recognize "Mary Kay Letourneau" and "Margaret Sanger".  Any notable sources will undoubtedly use these names as the commonly recognized name.  Deference to their preferred/personal names will be secondary if at all.  In the case of Manning, "Pvt. Bradley Manning" will be in all future references as the primary common name.  Regardless of personal desire.  Even progressive sources would include at least both "Bradley" and "Chelsea" as it is confusing since "Chelsea" is not a notable persona and the source will have to note the transition from the notable name to the preferred name.  In fact, "Breanna" was used by Manning during the phase of Manning's life that was marked by notable criminal acts.  Some activists wanted to refer to Manning as "Breanna" months prior to his public declaration mostly on the basis of their desire to use transition name of someone diagnosed with GID/GD and that anything less was a BLP violation.  .  "Breanna" is notable but it's not the name by which most will identify the crimes that were committed.  The same is true for "Chelsea".  The use of "Chelsea" will always require an explanation as to who "Chelsea Manning" is and why she is notable.  This inevitably will require the common name of "Bradley Manning".  Just like there can be references to "Margaret Slee", the name she is commonly known by is the article title.  "Slee" would require extraordinary explanation.  In fact, there are sources that don't mention that name at all (including Wikipedia) because it is largely irrelevant to the topic.  When Prince changed his name to a symbol, it became necessary to preface every reference to him as "The artist formerly known as Prince" TAFKAP.  Manning will forever be known as "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning".

In the case of Manning, we may well see various sources start to use "Chelsea" as they refer to Manning instead of "Bradley." While this will meet with approval of various LGBT groups and the AP Manual of Style, it will not last and is a case of "recentism." Most of the sources that mention "Chelsea" will be about the transition itself. Future articles however will never use "Chelsea" without mentioning how it derived from "Bradley." While this style will be objected to by those sympathetic to Manning's transition, sources will not be able to reference "Chelsea" without reminding the reader as to who she is. Using feminine pronouns in the article is proper, but pretending that we can have a "Chelsea" as the primary name of the article is contrary to how future publications will refer to Manning. Even Manning's lawyer used "Bradley" and male pronouns. Every future coverage that relates to Manning will start with a reference to "Bradley" because unless the reader is reminded, the official account will not match the source so the transition becomes crucial to understanding.

She will never lose her reference to Bradley and until notable sources drop the explanation as to who "Chelsea Manning" is, the common name and the name of the article should remain "Bradley Manning" because there will be no standalone Chelsea articles that don't refer to Bradley. If we are to keep a BLP page, rather than merging the whole thing into an article about the event, the proper name is "Bradley Manning".

Common name that is recognized, used and will be historically accurate should reflect the title
Correspondence and petitions post-announcement will likely contain Manning's legal name and gender pronouns. While it is rather clear why the official name matches, the use of male gender pronouns is not. The two are not tied together. Will it be confusing to the reader to see an official document using "Bradley" and "he" while WP uses "Chelsea" and "she"? Using "she" in the article is not particularly problematic but it does call into question the reason "why." We are supposedly using her preferred identity and gender yet her own petitions by her attorney do not. Manning's lawyer explained why he didn't use "Chelsea" but not why he continues to use "he." Obviously, Manning is aware and has authorized his attorney to use the name and gender that she is commonly associated as it provides a level of understanding for the reader ("Bradley" and "he"). The cover letter also did not mention the recognized DSM illness associated with gender dysphoria as a humanitarian reason for commutation or pardon. A number of other humanitarian reasons were mentioned, such as whistleblower and the conditions of detention, but not transgender persecution or being female and housed in an all-male barracks. It is clear that Manning accepts that the best hope for obtaining a pardon/commutation is by ignoring what WP is highlighting as his main identifying feature. It begs the question as to why this particular aspect of Manning's life is so prominent in explaining her actions in WP yet very lacking in her own plea for release. The talk pages of Manning are alight with claims that being called "Bradley" and "he" are transphobic and even claims that it is a form of violence. Yet her attorney uses the same offensive terms and doesn't even mention gender dysphoria as an issue for confinement. Often editors point to a rather vague "legal strategy" that has neither been discussed or outlined or sourced. I can only conclude she wishes to have support from the LGBT community and we see the type of activism on her page that is normally used in bio's of transgender people that were victims of crimes with accusations that not acknowledging her true gender is a form of assault. Yet, Manning describes herself in ways that are inconsistent with the level of activism she enjoys on Wikipedia. It is not unreasonable to suspect that Manning is pandering to transgender groups for support while at the same time trying to keep her transgenderism out of the public eye in the form of pleadings. While Wikipedia should neither support or reject pandering or make judgements, it is fair to weigh the possibility in order to preserve neutrality. WP notes hypocrisy and subjective pandering in numerous politically charged articles including BLP's and Manning is not a particularly notable case.

In deference to his press release, we should note Manning's gender dysphoria, the gender identity pronoun request she has made, but the article name should remain true to the name that all foreseeable references will be made: "Bradley Manning." WP should also take care when using a particular name or a gender pronoun that might disparage those that intimately identified with her living as a gay man. Using pronouns that imply a gay person was in a straight relationship or straight person was in a gay relationship or that a trans person is a cis person has the same consequences. WP should not be in the business of making decision over which miscategorization is more or less offensive. Rather, WP should use verifiability and notability to report sourced facts.

Finally, WP should take careful note as to whether Manning deserves a separate BLP outside the actions that are noteworthy. It seems that Mannings' life is only notable due to the crimes he committed. No other act rises to notability. Transgender is but a sideshow and is akin to rubbernecking at a traffic accident. There are transgender people all across the world that have gender dysphoria, issues at work, etc, but they don't act out in a way that creates a notable event. As I see it, keeping bio's like this only create a WP:BATTLEGROUND between single issue advocates that want to use the bio to promote a cause through hagiographic methods vs. people that oppose the underlying act and therefore want to portray the individual unfavorably. The solution is to remove these marginal BLPs and merge notable acts into the article of the event and remove tangential events.