> There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely edit this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly misgendering this person

I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought made the most sense, with explanation.

> However, it is rare to need to phrase something this way and usually such phrasings serve to portray being trans in a negative light.

How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what ways is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of social acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point in the future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the status quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past tense?

> It is not confusing whatsoever. People change names and aliases all the time for a variety of reasons but the world doesn't end and future generations aren't confused as to who someone is.

Well, obviously people are confused, because I just was when I first read the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the world that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move on to something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are confused, how often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more or less confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?

> Moreover, misgendering someone isn't just ignoring their identity, it is a slap in the face and challenges the validity of their existence.

The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past tense as they were in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able to change their past state.

> I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought made the most sense, with explanation.

It's not a blame thing or a "tut tut shame on you". The fact is it is a misgendering and that is harmful to people even if unintended. You don't need to apologize to me, but I think you should do the right thing and edit your original post and change the pronouns.

> How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what ways is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of social acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point in the future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the status quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past tense?

This has to do with how trans people are reported on and represented in media. Often media will explicitly draw attention to someone being trans while at the same time misgendering or attempting to paint the person as being abnormal or unbalanced. More subtly, often times media and comments will always draw attention to a person's gender before transitioning and it makes it difficult for someone to live as their current, actual identity and gender.

> Well, obviously people are confused, because I just was when I first read the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the world that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move on to something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are confused, how often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more or less confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?

I'm just pointing out that people change names and aliases all the time and we manage to do just fine. There isn't a problem with continuing to use the name Chelsea Manning and the proper gender pronouns.

> The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past tense as they were in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able to change their past state.

It's not about the past state. It's that their present state is always reduced back to that previous state. A trans person doesn't take to take their gender for granted and being misgendered is common. That misgender often goes beyond and uncomfortable social situation, that misgendering can challenge your medical access, identification documents, your sexual orientation, and lead to direct violence against your person.

The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about "historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.

> The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about "historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.

I can't help but feel you keep misconstruing my argument to be that people should not be able to change their name or gender, or that we should ignore their name and gender preference, which I've very explicitly made clear is not my case. I do, and will continue to "just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use" for the present and future tense. It's only the past tense I have questions about, and am seeking a valid argument for.

I'm unclear why there is a special case where people who decide to change their name (or gender, but that's irrelevant to my argument) have special rules about how their past is represented that nothing else follows, as far as I'm aware.

> It's not about the past state. It's that their present state is always reduced back to that previous state.

It's a fucking name. If a person can't live with the fact that they used to be called something else, they need serious help with their self-image. It's not on other people to let you pretend you were never in jail, it's not on them to let you pretend you weren't raised in Cornwall, and it's not on them to let you pretend you were always married to the same person. It's on them not to bring it up when it's not pertinent, which it sometimes is, particularly in medical, judicial, sexual and demographic contexts.

> 'Gender association' implies that there is some true gender rather than what Chelsea Manning has stated and that is very transphobic whether you realize it or not.

I haven't downvoted you but let me explain why others have. You're making politically controversial statements and essentially accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.

This place is full of engineers. There are only two ways you can say there is no true gender. The first is to take the anti-science position that males and females have the same chromosomes with all that entails and the second is to redefine "gender" to mean something outside of what most people understand it to mean.

It's completely understandable that members of a community where making subtle distinctions are important would want to redefine relevant words to make their meaning more clear to one another. But becoming indignant when other people won't adopt your Newspeak is just contributing to the political inflammation of the situation.

> I haven't downvoted you but let me explain why others have. You're making politically controversial statements and essentially accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.

I am not accusing anyone of being a bigot. However, it would be silly to assume that there are not cultural and social biases about gender that you and I grow up with and have, even if we don't realize it. That is what I am getting at: this isn't some accusation, but that statement definitely has a connotation about what it means to be a particular gender.

> This place is full of engineers. There are only two ways you can say there is no true gender. The first is to take the anti-science position that males and females have the same chromosomes with all that entails and the second is to redefine "gender" to mean something outside of what most people understand it to mean.

Gender is not your genes and there is a difference between sex and gender. The view that sex and gender have difference is not an unusual understanding of what gender means. Moreover, there is a lot of assumptions and stereotypes in culture and society about gender. Even if those assumptions are common, that does not mean they are valid or that they are not harmful.

> It's completely understandable that members of a community where making subtle distinctions are important would want to redefine relevant words to make their meaning more clear to one another.

You are implying that trans people being able to define their identity and having their identity accepted is a niche thing that isn't relevant to society as a whole when it most certainly is. Being able to have an identity and exist without facing violence and hardship is important no matter how numerically small a population is.

> But becoming indignant when other people won't adopt your Newspeak is just contributing to the political inflammation of the situation.

I think you missed the point of what Newspeak is. Correcting false assumptions and stereotypes about gender is not about limiting discussion or dialog. Further, there is no way that trans communities are even close to being in a position of political power and influence, being able to have their identity without that identity being challenged just because they exist isn't an attempt to suppress people.

> I am not accusing anyone of being a bigot. However, it would be silly to assume that there are not cultural and social biases about gender that you and I grow up with and have, even if we don't realize it. That is what I am getting at: this isn't some accusation, but that statement definitely has a connotation about what it means to be a particular gender.

The words you're using could be applied to anything. We're culturally biased to believe that murder, rape and slavery are wrong, that free speech and self-determination are virtuous, etc. So your point has to be that the bias is not only present but incorrect. The problem is that's the political question which is in dispute. People aren't inherently wrong just because they disagree with you.

> Gender is not your genes and there is a difference between sex and gender.

This is what I'm talking about. "Gender" and "genes" have the same root. Several of the definitions of "gender" in the dictionary list it as a synonym for sex. You're trying to claim that sex and gender mean (materially) different things because that allows you to more easily distinguish one from the other. So you're essentially using gender as a term of art. Which is fine until you start trying to tell everyone else that your meaning is the only meaning.

> You are implying that trans people being able to define their identity and having their identity accepted is a niche thing that isn't relevant to society as a whole when it most certainly is. Being able to have an identity and exist without facing violence and hardship is important no matter how numerically small a population is.

The problem is the cultural bias goes both ways. Most of society will assume that someone referred to with the feminine pronoun is genetically female. When that assumption is false the use of that pronoun becomes inherently misleading. So you're implicitly claiming that someone should have the right to mislead others about their sex in order to self-identify as the opposite gender. Can you at least understand how not everyone would agree with that conclusion?

And there is a mile wide gap between disagreeing over which words to use to describe someone and committing violence against them.

> I think you missed the point of what Newspeak is. Correcting false assumptions and stereotypes about gender is not about limiting discussion or dialog. Further, there is no way that trans communities are even close to being in a position of political power and influence, being able to have their identity without that identity being challenged just because they exist isn't an attempt to suppress people.

A majority or position of power is not necessary to enforce conformity to an ideal. All it requires is dedication and repetition. More to the point, if you don't think it can be effective then why are you doing it?