You are projecting. Please re-read my original post, and followup. To assume I'm biased without at least asking some questions first to clarify my intent is disingenuous, unfair, and unappreciated.
> 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.
A lot to respond to, so I'll just make it brief. How to handle someone who has transition is well covered on the internet. Also very common on the internet is bad faith arguments that fret over whether they should or should not accept certain aspects of someone's transition. Simply put, just accept that transition and use basic phrases if you must refer to something about that person's past presentation. However, don't always bring it up or bring it up without need as you are basically performing a subtle misgendering of the person by always throwing that past presentation in the face of their current presentation, which is something that happens a lot for trans folks.
I'm not trying to reject anyone's transition, I'm trying to figure out when, where and why it was decided that the past description in this case gets rewritten for the current context instead of continuing to to exist in an accurate form.
For example, we don't refer to a block of marble as a statue until it has become one. When referring to its past, we don't generally refer to it as a statue until it has become one. I was a boy before I was a man, when referring to that period of my life, expect anyone to refer to me as a boy (or child), and not my current state.
To be absolutely clear, I have no problem referring to someone as they desire in the present or future, but I've yet to see a good reason (beyond "it's disrespectful!", with little or no explanation) why a change in name or gender requires a rewriting of history. I would be happy to have an argument put forth I could get behind, it would hopefully make this less confusing in the future, and cause less friction if I misstep.
While a single entity can have multiple identifiers, one is usually canonical in a communication environment. For example, we say "Istanbul was founded in the 7th century BC" when speaking of the present-day city, But we say "Byzantium was founded" when we wish to limit the discussion to the pre-Constantine era. If we wish to span multiple eras, Istanbul is the only choice, as that is the canonical identifier.
As such, I believe you should refer to Manning as Chelsea if she is the subject, but may refer to her as Bradley if the leak is the subject. It would be helpful to qualify her name as "Chelsea Manning, who was at the time known as Bradley", "Bradley Manning, who later changed her name to Chelsea", or some similar construction for audiences who are not well aware of her, to help them connect historical knowledge to your topic.
This is perfectly sensible, and exactly what I was looking for. It chooses the most relevant and least confusing identifier for the context it was used in. The question then becomes, "Is this acceptable to the transgender community?" and "Is this in common use?"
> 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.