Or as the New Yorker profile of Assange put it:

The Web site’s strengths — its near-total imperviousness to lawsuits and government harassment — make it an instrument for good in societies where the laws are unjust. But, unlike authoritarian regimes, democratic governments hold secrets largely because citizens agree that they should, in order to protect legitimate policy. In liberal societies, the site’s strengths are its weaknesses…

Soon enough, Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most — power without accountability — is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all#ixzz0rRqpqqTB

But you’re not “observing gender identity” and judging people based on that (which is its own issue).

You (and Rob, and Xeni) are guessing about the possibility of possible gender identities, rather than a confirmed gender identity, and making judgments based on multiple unproven speculations. Since there is no hope of having those speculations confirmed or even explained by Manning, you’re never even really going to know if these guesses were right or wrong.

The whole point of this post, as far as I can tell, was to provide information that allowed people to question someone else’s gender identity–even knowing that the person in question wouldn’t be able to speak to those speculations.

Xeni and Rob (as far as I can tell from reading the post itself and the comments about why you chose to post this post), you decided that your guesses about the possibility of Manning’s possible gender identity *were* news, and made a judgment to post it as such.

Manning’s gender identity, were it proven, might even *be* newsworthy, as sad as that makes me personally. But speculations as to Manning’s gender identity? If you’re going to present unprovable speculation as possible information, how can you then use “it’s unprovable speculation, not accurate information” as your rationale for having posted said speculation as information? The same unprovable speculation can’t simultaneously *be* news *and* be your rationale for having posted the speculation as news. I’m really, really disappointed.

I appreciate, Rob and Xeni, that you are trying to make Manning into a more “humane” person, fill in some details about the narrative that you feel didn’t make sense, and shape the mainstream media narrative surrounding the Manning leaks story. But, historically, has providing info that enabled speculation about a widely reviled figure’s gender identity ever been a queer-friendly action?

Have the mainstream media or its consumers ever become more sympathetic toward, or even more informed about, gender-variant people (as a whole or as individuals) because someone who leaked classified documents during wartime was revealed to possibly be gender-variant?

The mainstream media’s story right now is “Manning: hacker who leaked classified military secrets.” Any new information is going to be added onto what they already have. So, it’s going to be “Manning: troubled possible gender-variant hacker who leaked classified military secrets.”

And if you don’t think that story will reinforce preexisting negative sentiment about the fitness of queer people in general for US military service, during a week when that’s a particularly bad thing, I don’t know what to tell you.

I understand why you did what you did, here, but I really wish you hadn’t.

But you’re operating under the flawed assumption that the editors of newspapers aren’t subject to heavy government influence.

Eventually you’ll have to confront the paradox that your faith creates when you discover that the Times withheld reports on illegal wiretapping by the NSA http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/16/nytimes.statement/
until after Bush was re-elected or that a journalist (probably) had access to the “Collateral Murder” video for over a year before it was leaked.

At this point, wikileaks is a valuable asset to anyone with access to whistleblower material as the Obama continues to crack down on it.

Once wikileaks steps outside the bounds of decency it will be time to reassess. But until that point, they are the most trustworthy party in this arena.

I will say that I’m struck by the recurring similarities I’ve noticed in the backgrounds of many of the transwomen I’ve met: military service pre-transition and geek occupations/skills/hobbies (“geek” referring to both an interest and involvement in the sciences and to a love for science fiction and fantasy culture). Actually, geekdom seems to link frequently to the GLBT, sex positive, and kink communities alike. (I wanted badly to link to the Rolling Stone article “The Mystery of Larry Wachowski”, which touches on this, but all the links I can dig up are broken. I’m a geek myself, obviously, and badly wanted to join the Army as a teen but while I was willing to die for my country, I wasn’t willing to be humiliated by being categorized as female. Remarkable how much more scary that was to me.)

However this breaks down will be immaterial next to Manning’s inevitable punishment, both by the military and by press overexposure.

About a personality crisis
You got it while it was hot
It’s always hot, you know, but frustration and heartache is what you’ve got
I’m tryin’ to talk about personality

– New York Dolls (1973)

But anyway, if this does turn out to be true it could really set back acceptance of LGBT’s in the military.

But it’s not a confirmed secret that’s being disclosed. It’s idle speculation based on some emotional and ambiguous statements.

Better suited for Perez Hilton.

I remember the Wachowski article. It’s a shame that Rollingstone has “lost” it or blasted it down the memoryhole.

I find it hugely unfortunate that he got outed like this. I fear that he will ‘accidentally’ get exposed to the general prison population, after this news is ‘somehow’ circulated. And it doesn’t matter if this all turns out to not, in fact, be true. That will never be believed by some.

If your comment was moderated, it might well be not so much your position as the language used. We want to avoid comments which are likely to heat things up even if posted in good faith.

When y’all redacted that part I smiled. Whatever their gender state is, they’re in enough shit without having that as a lever to be used against them as well.

I’m really not sure how I feel about this lengthy “HEY MANNING IS PROBABLY TRANS” post now showing up. Congratulations, you just outed Manning at the top of your lungs.

Manning clearly was in a vulnerable position. If it was Manning that leaked, Manning is a heroic person regardless.

I understand that he was expressing his depression, but in my own “IM dialect” it would only be used by a straight male in a non-serious way (joking, or half-joking) – very much like the RL facial gesture of pouting, actually. For that reason it actually stood out for me at the time, and I was genuinely puzzled why he was using it. If all this recent revelation and speculation is true (big if) I could easily see it as a small way in which Manning is expressing a female gender identity.

Why would you think you have the permission to out someone so publicly? It’s almost like “oh, I guess most people didn’t see it, so I’m going to write another post and make it obvious so people can’t miss it!”

As for intersex and transpeople in the military, DADT won’t do anything for us. We’re still clearly unwanted in the military and pretty much every closeted trans or IS person serving knows that DADT does not apply to us.
A lot of us are there mind you. MTFs go because we hope that it will “fix us” and when we’re depressed and see no future, the idea of getting killed out there is kind of appealing.

Maybe I’m out of line, but I really don’t think so. I don’t think someone’s presumed sexuality or gender identity counts as news.

OTOH, the Canadian Forces don’t care as much. We have a few active duty trans women serving here (one rode in the toronto pride CF float last summer)

I’ve been outed myself, and I know many others who haven’t been able to accomplish their coming out exactly as they had planned. This is what I think I’m really angry about. Not that I was somehow wronged, but that this secrecy still prevails, that the process of coming out has to be so carefully navigated. And the arguments in favor of “privacy” only perpetuates that awful secrecy; as well-meaning as I’m sure many who call for greater privacy are, it has the same effect as the homophobic laws you mention. It creates an atmosphere of secrecy, of otherness. Maybe it’s idealistic to hope for a world where the media can discover someone is gay, and they’re met with a collective shrug.

This specific case is fraught with complications. I don’t feel very comfortable speculating overmuch on Manning’s sexuality, although I think Rob and Xeni have done so in a way that is as sympathetic as possible. In all fairness to the people I’ve wrongly decried as “the PC brigade,” I’ll admit that after rereading it, it does all seem like rather thin speculation, especially after reading Gleen Greenwald’s excellent coverage of the story, which certainly seems to suggest that Lamo might not be a very trustworthy source on Manning.

All that being said, I completely concur with mastercontroller above, in that beautifully written comment (well done!); if he actually accomplished what he allegedly did, he is at the very least an honorable person who acted according to his principles. Sometimes the cure has to taste like bitter poison; this is just as true for a nation as it is for any patient. I see this as no different from the torture photos or prisoner narratives — if we as a nation want to support our troops, it would be far better if the government we elected would act, even in war, in a way consistent with our morals.

Why would you think you have the permission to out someone so publicly?

The issue is already in the media.

If he were confidently heterosexual (Rustler’s Rhapsody!) and a primary factor in his pangs of conscience was sparked by a more “normal” falling out with a spouse or girlfriend of the opposite gender, would anyone care? Maybe his dog died. Strange things provide the final straw to push a person to dramatically alter the course of their life.

Nobody knows why he did what he did. And because of his forced isolation in the bowels of our American prison network, and the deliberate distortion and outright animal ignorance of our press, we can only guess. It could be he saw a particular film, read a book, recalled a traumatic or inspiring childhood incident, or was influenced by his grandmother or a teacher.

In addition, the why of his action matters little to me. Whether his motives were pure or not. What matters is we citizens know something about “our” government that we didn’t know before. Because our fucking government, Democrat or Republican, is built to keep us in the dark, despite PR campaigns to the contrary.

We should welcome and thank anyone who dares to cross the threshold to make good on the cynical deception of the American system which circle jerks 24/7 about its openness and access. Most of the representatives in our system talk about transparency. This guy did it.

The newsworthiness of this is apparent when you consider Manning’s motivation in disclosing whistleblowing activities to a stranger. The mainstream-friendly narrative that he’s simply a ‘boastful hacker’ is just that. And the explanation that he searched for wikileaks on twitter and found Lamo therein doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. If Manning believed that he was talking to someone who he could trust with deeply personal problems, it may have encouraged him to say things he would not otherwise have said at all.

One’s gender identity is a deeply personal thing. This idle speculation is typical of the privilege cisgender people have about trans people. It hurts. It has no bearing on the case at hand. It isn’t information the public needs to be aware of.

Even if it is being talked about elsewhere, it doesn’t have to be perpetuated. This sort of thing just allows people to gossip more. By claiming “newsworthyness” you put all trans people in jeopardy of being outed if anything that should become curious appears before you. Trans people don’t need the extra scrutiny that cis people seem to want to give them, we have a hard enough time fitting into society as it is.

As far as acceptance of LGBT by the military, well, the T in that equation will probably never be accepted. Transsexuality is treated as a medical/mental problem by the military. It is different from the DADT issues that affect lesbian, gays and bisexuals. Even if DADT is repealed, Trans people will still be hunted out of the military and discharged. They will not benefit from the repeal at all.

This is really a dick move.

Yeah, that part sucks. However, I’m betting he won’t know about it except as an indirect generality because he’ll never be online again.

With all due respect, it really seems like BB was the source for this. Even if others had speculated on this, the authors of this post took this to a whole other level.

Maybe I’m just out of line, but I think that in most cases GLBT people shouldn’t be outed by others. Regardless of how much you are an ally to GLBT people and how positively it is framed, the fact remains that it is a non-consensual act that has incredibly far reaching consequences for those who are outed.
If you think it’s ok to do this sort of thing, you clearly don’t understand it. Hope you’re enjoying your privilege.

I really don’t think you or Xeni acted appropriately here and I don’t think your justification for the newsworthiness aspect of this passes the smell test.

i just don’t see how being trans is “remarkable” in and of itself. now… if it was revealed he was… i dunno… a clone of hitler or an alien hybrid or a robot from the future with laser beam eyes. yes. that would be more notable than the fact that he is alleged to be the wikileaker. but being trans is about as notable, IMHO, as being left handed.

some people are born with the wrong set of genitals. it happens. get over it.

I find the gender aspect an interesting detail of the story and I hope Brad finds strength and self-belief over the next few months/years.

They’re treating transparency as terrorism.
I read that New Yorker article on Wikileaks a few weeks ago, and I remember the military representatives who spoke essentially said “We have no comment on Wikileaks – they’re inconsequential”. It would be funny if it weren’t so scary.

Furthermore it seems unlikely that any of this is actually true, which makes it even a more irresponsible form of *speculative* apology for *speculative* personal information (speculating madly about it all the way through the apology itself). A few ambiguously used terms is no basis on which to open a file on someone’s sexuality. Why would Boing Boing even ‘go there’? Oversensitivity to ‘LGBT’ issues, I presume, even to the point of apologising for imagined transgressions.

But hey, as long as you maintain the *appearance* of making as much amends with the alternatively sexual as possible, the actual effects of your words on the person you are talking about, and whether there is any actual basis for any of this speculation, those things don’t matter, right?

It’s all about appearances, it seems, on this planet. Proven, once again.